A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 16:52:53
The BBC History website has posted a new article: "A Tudor Historian's View of the Richard III Excavations" by Suzannah Lipscomb:
http://www.historyextra.com/excavation
I read the article with trepidation, but it's surprisingly fair, taking the media to task for headlines about "the hunchback king" and making the important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis. She even says that it's time to reexamine Shakespeare's and More's accounts, especially More's, to see if "the sainted More . . . was a liar"!
I'm speechless.
Carol
http://www.historyextra.com/excavation
I read the article with trepidation, but it's surprisingly fair, taking the media to task for headlines about "the hunchback king" and making the important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis. She even says that it's time to reexamine Shakespeare's and More's accounts, especially More's, to see if "the sainted More . . . was a liar"!
I'm speechless.
Carol
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 16:58:35
Hoo hah! So am I!
Will wonders never cease??!!
Thanks for posting this, Carol.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:53 PM
To:
Subject: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
The BBC History website has posted a new article: "A Tudor Historian's View
of the Richard III Excavations" by Suzannah Lipscomb:
http://www.historyextra.com/excavation
I read the article with trepidation, but it's surprisingly fair, taking the
media to task for headlines about "the hunchback king" and making the
important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis. She even says that
it's time to reexamine Shakespeare's and More's accounts, especially More's,
to see if "the sainted More . . . was a liar"!
I'm speechless.
Carol
Will wonders never cease??!!
Thanks for posting this, Carol.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:53 PM
To:
Subject: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
The BBC History website has posted a new article: "A Tudor Historian's View
of the Richard III Excavations" by Suzannah Lipscomb:
http://www.historyextra.com/excavation
I read the article with trepidation, but it's surprisingly fair, taking the
media to task for headlines about "the hunchback king" and making the
important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis. She even says that
it's time to reexamine Shakespeare's and More's accounts, especially More's,
to see if "the sainted More . . . was a liar"!
I'm speechless.
Carol
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 20:40:37
So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the Tudor sources are lying?
And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
Nope, not yet.
Never mind there's no evidence they were even murdered at this point. Even if one does include the little skeletons in the urns people assume are the princes. I doubt all of the dogma according to Shakespeare, et. al. is going to dissolve if the DNA is proven.
Which means my old "Elizabeth I walks on water" history professor will still be saying, "Richard probably did it."
~Wednesday
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> The BBC History website has posted a new article: "A Tudor Historian's View of the Richard III Excavations" by Suzannah Lipscomb:
>
> http://www.historyextra.com/excavation
>
> I read the article with trepidation, but it's surprisingly fair, taking the media to task for headlines about "the hunchback king" and making the important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis. She even says that it's time to reexamine Shakespeare's and More's accounts, especially More's, to see if "the sainted More . . . was a liar"!
>
> I'm speechless.
>
> Carol
>
And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
Nope, not yet.
Never mind there's no evidence they were even murdered at this point. Even if one does include the little skeletons in the urns people assume are the princes. I doubt all of the dogma according to Shakespeare, et. al. is going to dissolve if the DNA is proven.
Which means my old "Elizabeth I walks on water" history professor will still be saying, "Richard probably did it."
~Wednesday
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> The BBC History website has posted a new article: "A Tudor Historian's View of the Richard III Excavations" by Suzannah Lipscomb:
>
> http://www.historyextra.com/excavation
>
> I read the article with trepidation, but it's surprisingly fair, taking the media to task for headlines about "the hunchback king" and making the important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis. She even says that it's time to reexamine Shakespeare's and More's accounts, especially More's, to see if "the sainted More . . . was a liar"!
>
> I'm speechless.
>
> Carol
>
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 21:30:12
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas. That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil (the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth: Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback. And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention. (Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot (Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity" myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-branded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas. That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil (the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth: Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback. And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention. (Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot (Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity" myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-branded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 21:45:28
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 22:22:19
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 22:40:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 22:42:17
It is available on DVD.
The copy I have is Disc 2 of a special edition of Olivier's version of the
Shakespeare play.
Rather ironic packaging, although it could be seen as balancing the
Shakespeare.
Try
http://www.moviemail.com/film/dvd/Richard-III-Olivier-1955-Special-Edition/
Or
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-III-Special-Edition-DVD/dp/B000BSQQZY/ref=pd
_cp_d_h__0
Much about it is now very dated, but the intellectual arguments are not.
Be warned - it is very long - you will need two sittings.
A young Starkey gets a come-uppance in this, at the hands of Jeremy Potter
and the defence counsel.
There is also a book to match which might be harder to find.
Hope this helps, Gillian
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: 18 November 2012 09:22
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove
> the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it
> follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
The copy I have is Disc 2 of a special edition of Olivier's version of the
Shakespeare play.
Rather ironic packaging, although it could be seen as balancing the
Shakespeare.
Try
http://www.moviemail.com/film/dvd/Richard-III-Olivier-1955-Special-Edition/
Or
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-III-Special-Edition-DVD/dp/B000BSQQZY/ref=pd
_cp_d_h__0
Much about it is now very dated, but the intellectual arguments are not.
Be warned - it is very long - you will need two sittings.
A young Starkey gets a come-uppance in this, at the hands of Jeremy Potter
and the defence counsel.
There is also a book to match which might be harder to find.
Hope this helps, Gillian
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: 18 November 2012 09:22
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove
> the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it
> follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 22:50:48
Starkey's entry about 5 minutes in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6hu46ta-f8
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:40
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6hu46ta-f8
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:40
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 23:06:13
Thanks, David -
I've watched the Duke's intro and the judge's instructions - very interesting indeed. I'll try to watch the rest of it tomorrow. I practiced law in Canada, so this is much like the system I'm used to, with opposing counsel referring to one another as "my learned friend." Strict rules of decorum, which I love.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 22:40:20 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
I've watched the Duke's intro and the judge's instructions - very interesting indeed. I'll try to watch the rest of it tomorrow. I practiced law in Canada, so this is much like the system I'm used to, with opposing counsel referring to one another as "my learned friend." Strict rules of decorum, which I love.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 22:40:20 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 23:14:31
Hi, Gillian-
Thanks for the info. I am hoping to watch the whole thing on YouTube since it's generally quicker and easier than ordering a DVD. I do have a special edition of the Olivier RIII which I find mesmerizing, he's so dastardly. But I digress - mine is the Criterion collection and it doesn't include the trial, more's the pity.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Gillian Laughton
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 22:42:19 GMT
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
It is available on DVD.
The copy I have is Disc 2 of a special edition of Olivier's version of the
Shakespeare play.
Rather ironic packaging, although it could be seen as balancing the
Shakespeare.
Try
http://www.moviemail.com/film/dvd/Richard-III-Olivier-1955-Special-Edition/
Or
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-III-Special-Edition-DVD/dp/B000BSQQZY/ref=pd
_cp_d_h__0
Much about it is now very dated, but the intellectual arguments are not.
Be warned - it is very long - you will need two sittings.
A young Starkey gets a come-uppance in this, at the hands of Jeremy Potter
and the defence counsel.
There is also a book to match which might be harder to find.
Hope this helps, Gillian
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: 18 November 2012 09:22
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove
> the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it
> follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Thanks for the info. I am hoping to watch the whole thing on YouTube since it's generally quicker and easier than ordering a DVD. I do have a special edition of the Olivier RIII which I find mesmerizing, he's so dastardly. But I digress - mine is the Criterion collection and it doesn't include the trial, more's the pity.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Gillian Laughton
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 22:42:19 GMT
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
It is available on DVD.
The copy I have is Disc 2 of a special edition of Olivier's version of the
Shakespeare play.
Rather ironic packaging, although it could be seen as balancing the
Shakespeare.
Try
http://www.moviemail.com/film/dvd/Richard-III-Olivier-1955-Special-Edition/
Or
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-III-Special-Edition-DVD/dp/B000BSQQZY/ref=pd
_cp_d_h__0
Much about it is now very dated, but the intellectual arguments are not.
Be warned - it is very long - you will need two sittings.
A young Starkey gets a come-uppance in this, at the hands of Jeremy Potter
and the defence counsel.
There is also a book to match which might be harder to find.
Hope this helps, Gillian
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: 18 November 2012 09:22
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove
> the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it
> follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 23:19:28
I don't know much about legal practice, but I have to say I think the defence council is rubbish - he seems to be too easily deflected from interesting lines of questioning.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 23:06
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Thanks, David -
I've watched the Duke's intro and the judge's instructions - very interesting indeed. I'll try to watch the rest of it tomorrow. I practiced law in Canada, so this is much like the system I'm used to, with opposing counsel referring to one another as "my learned friend." Strict rules of decorum, which I love.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 22:40:20 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 23:06
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Thanks, David -
I've watched the Duke's intro and the judge's instructions - very interesting indeed. I'll try to watch the rest of it tomorrow. I practiced law in Canada, so this is much like the system I'm used to, with opposing counsel referring to one another as "my learned friend." Strict rules of decorum, which I love.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 22:40:20 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 23:24:56
I didn't get to the case for the prosecution - the prosecutor was just being introduced when I stopped watching. I'll let you know tomorrow what I think of the defense counsel, etc.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 23:19:34 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
I don't know much about legal practice, but I have to say I think the defence council is rubbish - he seems to be too easily deflected from interesting lines of questioning.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 23:06
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Thanks, David -
I've watched the Duke's intro and the judge's instructions - very interesting indeed. I'll try to watch the rest of it tomorrow. I practiced law in Canada, so this is much like the system I'm used to, with opposing counsel referring to one another as "my learned friend." Strict rules of decorum, which I love.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 22:40:20 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 23:19:34 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
I don't know much about legal practice, but I have to say I think the defence council is rubbish - he seems to be too easily deflected from interesting lines of questioning.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 23:06
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Thanks, David -
I've watched the Duke's intro and the judge's instructions - very interesting indeed. I'll try to watch the rest of it tomorrow. I practiced law in Canada, so this is much like the system I'm used to, with opposing counsel referring to one another as "my learned friend." Strict rules of decorum, which I love.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 17 Nov 2012 22:40:20 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012, 22:22
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Is that mock trial available anywhere for viewing, Gillian? I've heard of
it, but never seen it, and it would be fun to be able to watch it.
It does seem to me that, regardless of whether Richard suffered from a
"crooked back" - let's say that much of the legend is true, it is still
possible to shoot down so many of the More/Morton/ Shakespearean stories
about Richard and to establish beyond a doubt so many things that uphold him
as a brave, honourable, and just man that the allegations of murder of the
nephews just can't stand, because of the vagueness of the allegation (vague
because what happened to the boys is so uncertain) but also because of
inherent implausibility, since Richard, with Titulus Regius in place, didn't
need to do away with the boys and probably wouldn't have wanted to do away
with his blood kin, even if they were half Woodville.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gillian
Laughton
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his
over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the
big 1985 mock Trial.
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: 18 November 2012 08:30
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for
Richard
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> So does this mean we can all be friends now IF the DNA results prove the
Tudor sources are lying?
>
> And if the Tudor sources are lying about his appearance, does it follow
they're probably lying about his killing his nephews?
>
> Nope, not yet. <snip>
Carol responds:
I still think there's cause for celebration if even one Tudor historian is
willing to reconsider the evidence and question the sainted Sir Thomas.
That's a very important first step. So is acknowledging that Tudor sources
were exaggerating a raised shoulder into deformity (which she admits is hard
to reconcile with Richard's record as a soldier) to make Richard seem evil
(the medieval equation of physical ugliness with evil).
If the Leicester warrior is Richard, we've already disposed of one myth:
Richard was so hated that, long after his death, his bones were dumped in
the River Soar.
We're also close to getting rid of the hunchback if Tudor historians can be
as reasonable as this one in refusing to equate scoliosis with a hunchback.
And we should be finished, once and for all, with the withered arm--in
itself a reason to reexamine More for falsehoods since it's his invention.
(Wonder when Tudor historians will notice that little matter of Edward IV's
wildly misstated age at death?)
They should also note his substitution of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Talbot
(Butler) in the matter of Edward IV's precontract. Now what motive would a
truth-telling saint have for doing that?
And, apart from More and the Leicester dig, we now have proof that Richard
never intended to marry his niece Elizabeth.
Tiny steps, maybe, though I think eradicating the "foul lump of deformity"
myth is a huge step forward.
I say kudos to any Tudor historian who has the courage to step forward and
challenge the dogma that has bound them all for so many years. I hope that
David Starkey is listening.
Speaking of whom, has anyone seen this news story from a few months ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163918/Historian-David-Starkey-bran
ded-racist-bigot-saying-Rochdale-sex-gang-valu
OT, I know, but maybe the old curmudgeon will lose his credibility!
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-17 23:44:41
Gillian Laughton wrote:
>
> Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the big 1985 mock Trial.
Carol responds:
Yes, I've seen his sniffy little attempt at testimony. What a prig1 (I think that's the right Briticism). That's the reason I'd like to see him further discredited--or, at least, roundly embarrassed.
However, I'd like to think that Richard's acquittal was based more on lack of evidence than on Starkey's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that he might not know everything about a monarch outside his period of specialization.
Carol
>
> Starkey lost most of his credibility when appearing for the prosecution, his over-confident "I know" statements lead to Richard being acquitted in the big 1985 mock Trial.
Carol responds:
Yes, I've seen his sniffy little attempt at testimony. What a prig1 (I think that's the right Briticism). That's the reason I'd like to see him further discredited--or, at least, roundly embarrassed.
However, I'd like to think that Richard's acquittal was based more on lack of evidence than on Starkey's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that he might not know everything about a monarch outside his period of specialization.
Carol
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-19 14:50:13
Carol wrote:
"Yes, I've seen his sniffy little attempt at testimony. What a prig1 (I
think that's the right Briticism). That's the reason I'd like to see him
further discredited--or, at least, roundly embarrassed.
However, I'd like to think that Richard's acquittal was based more on lack
of evidence than on Starkey's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that he might
not know everything about a monarch outside his period of specialization."
Every time I've seen Starkey I get the impression that he's trying to prove
how smart HE is, how correct HIS ideas or statements are and less about
whether what he's written/believes is true. If he's insecure, for whatever
reason, he has my sympathy, but that doesn't excuse his actions. It's almost
as if he feels that saying anything good about some monarch NOT a Tudor
diminishes the Tudors because it then becomes harder to place the Tudors in
a class by themselves. Maybe it's that Starkey doesn't know the difference
between being a publicist and an historian?
Personally, I find Elizabeth I to be an extremely interesting person, both
as a person and as a queen. I can see how someone could become, well,
"enamored" of her. However she WAS a human being and subject to all our
frailties; anger, jealousy, pride. What I find most interesting about her is
how she, usually, managed to control those "problems".
She certainly knew how to manage her Councils and Parliaments and that alone
puts her in the first rank of ruling monarchs (as opposed to those that only
"reigned").
Doug
"Yes, I've seen his sniffy little attempt at testimony. What a prig1 (I
think that's the right Briticism). That's the reason I'd like to see him
further discredited--or, at least, roundly embarrassed.
However, I'd like to think that Richard's acquittal was based more on lack
of evidence than on Starkey's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that he might
not know everything about a monarch outside his period of specialization."
Every time I've seen Starkey I get the impression that he's trying to prove
how smart HE is, how correct HIS ideas or statements are and less about
whether what he's written/believes is true. If he's insecure, for whatever
reason, he has my sympathy, but that doesn't excuse his actions. It's almost
as if he feels that saying anything good about some monarch NOT a Tudor
diminishes the Tudors because it then becomes harder to place the Tudors in
a class by themselves. Maybe it's that Starkey doesn't know the difference
between being a publicist and an historian?
Personally, I find Elizabeth I to be an extremely interesting person, both
as a person and as a queen. I can see how someone could become, well,
"enamored" of her. However she WAS a human being and subject to all our
frailties; anger, jealousy, pride. What I find most interesting about her is
how she, usually, managed to control those "problems".
She certainly knew how to manage her Councils and Parliaments and that alone
puts her in the first rank of ruling monarchs (as opposed to those that only
"reigned").
Doug
Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
2012-11-19 15:11:07
Hi, Doug & Carol -
Going maybe fm the sublime (Queen Elizabeth not Starkey) to the ridiculous, have you heard of the Bisley Boy? Apparently this is the name given to a theory that Princess Elizabeth died in childhood and a young boy fm (I think) Bisley was substituted. So, for the rest of his/her life, Queen E was a male. Which explains inter alias why he/she never got married.
Interesting, no?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: 19 Nov 2012 14:51:28 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Carol wrote:
"Yes, I've seen his sniffy little attempt at testimony. What a prig1 (I
think that's the right Briticism). That's the reason I'd like to see him
further discredited--or, at least, roundly embarrassed.
However, I'd like to think that Richard's acquittal was based more on lack
of evidence than on Starkey's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that he might
not know everything about a monarch outside his period of specialization."
Every time I've seen Starkey I get the impression that he's trying to prove
how smart HE is, how correct HIS ideas or statements are and less about
whether what he's written/believes is true. If he's insecure, for whatever
reason, he has my sympathy, but that doesn't excuse his actions. It's almost
as if he feels that saying anything good about some monarch NOT a Tudor
diminishes the Tudors because it then becomes harder to place the Tudors in
a class by themselves. Maybe it's that Starkey doesn't know the difference
between being a publicist and an historian?
Personally, I find Elizabeth I to be an extremely interesting person, both
as a person and as a queen. I can see how someone could become, well,
"enamored" of her. However she WAS a human being and subject to all our
frailties; anger, jealousy, pride. What I find most interesting about her is
how she, usually, managed to control those "problems".
She certainly knew how to manage her Councils and Parliaments and that alone
puts her in the first rank of ruling monarchs (as opposed to those that only
"reigned").
Doug
Going maybe fm the sublime (Queen Elizabeth not Starkey) to the ridiculous, have you heard of the Bisley Boy? Apparently this is the name given to a theory that Princess Elizabeth died in childhood and a young boy fm (I think) Bisley was substituted. So, for the rest of his/her life, Queen E was a male. Which explains inter alias why he/she never got married.
Interesting, no?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: 19 Nov 2012 14:51:28 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: A Tudor Historian Speaks up for Richard
Carol wrote:
"Yes, I've seen his sniffy little attempt at testimony. What a prig1 (I
think that's the right Briticism). That's the reason I'd like to see him
further discredited--or, at least, roundly embarrassed.
However, I'd like to think that Richard's acquittal was based more on lack
of evidence than on Starkey's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that he might
not know everything about a monarch outside his period of specialization."
Every time I've seen Starkey I get the impression that he's trying to prove
how smart HE is, how correct HIS ideas or statements are and less about
whether what he's written/believes is true. If he's insecure, for whatever
reason, he has my sympathy, but that doesn't excuse his actions. It's almost
as if he feels that saying anything good about some monarch NOT a Tudor
diminishes the Tudors because it then becomes harder to place the Tudors in
a class by themselves. Maybe it's that Starkey doesn't know the difference
between being a publicist and an historian?
Personally, I find Elizabeth I to be an extremely interesting person, both
as a person and as a queen. I can see how someone could become, well,
"enamored" of her. However she WAS a human being and subject to all our
frailties; anger, jealousy, pride. What I find most interesting about her is
how she, usually, managed to control those "problems".
She certainly knew how to manage her Councils and Parliaments and that alone
puts her in the first rank of ruling monarchs (as opposed to those that only
"reigned").
Doug
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.