Is this why the anti-Richard bias persists?

Here's a quote from a recent article on the debate over Richard III and what to do with his remains:

"What is clear is this: After decades of war between rival houses, Richard III became the last king of England to fall on the battlefield, slain while defending his crown against a marauding upstart backed by France. That upstart, Henry VII, seeded a House of Tudor that over a century would break with the Vatican, humble mighty Spain and usher in a golden age of British arts, enlightenment and power."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-england-discovery-of-possible-royal-grave-digs-up-twisted-legacy-of-richard-iii/2012/11/24/33c34570-3314-11e2-92f0-496af208bf23_story_1.html

Sounds to me as if some people, the article writer included, want to believe that Henry Tudor's victory at Bosworth was a good thing for England since it led, eventually, to Elizabeth I. The fact that Philip would not have attacked England if he had not had a better claim than the Tudors is not considered, nor is the probability that the golden age of literature and the Enlightenment would have occurred regardless of who sat on the throne of England.

But, no--the Tudor victory brought an end to the Middle Ages in England and ushered in the Renaissance. Or so Richard's detractors want to think--even American writers like this one. (At least the writer concedes that he wasn't a hunchback and that the fate of the "Princes" is unknown, though he claims that even Ricardians concede that Richard "locked them up" in the Tower.)

It's not just Shakespeare and More that we're up against. It's "Gloriana." And, of course, general ignorance of any history but the anecdotal variety taught in schools (Sir Walter Raleigh's cape, anyone?).

BTW, there's a link to Gareth Russell (the novelist who said that England should not celebrate a child killer), who is now claiming that "I myself have been inundated with e-mails and comments from people calling themselves 'Ricardians,' who don't believe me when I say that I was demonising neither them nor King Richard III. I was just expressing an opinion about how inappropriate I found the idea of a state funeral for him, for a variety of reasons. Mostly though, I'm just bored by the comments - smug, know-it-all or vicious - that are left all over the web by Tudor enthusiasts, particularly by those who choose to remain anonymous."

http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.co.uk/

He's actually acknowledging and complaining about smug, know-it-all, vicious comments by *Tudor* enthusiasts while denying that he was "demonising" Richard? Wait, now. Isn't calling him a child killer and saying that the idea of a state funeral for him is "silly, frivolous, and border-line obscene" a smug, know-it-all vicious comment in itself? Oh, wait. He does call him a "*possible* child murderer," but he says straight out that he considers the murders to be fact. At any rate, now he's trying to defend himself from "people who call themselves 'Ricardians'" by claiming that he's not d
"demonising" either Richard or us and is primarily criticizing *Tudor* partisans for what amounts to self-righteous maliciousness? I'm confused.

http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/search?q=Richard+III

And here's another one in which he tells us to grow up:

http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/2012/11/richard-iii-and-me.html

I could say the same to you, Gareth, and with better reason. At least, we're consistent!

One last article citing his less than enlightened arguments for believing that Richard murdered his nephews:

http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/missing-royals-and-murder-mysteries.html

Carol

You are correct to state the (so-called) English enlightenment would have happened anyway; i think there is a strong case to be made that it actually started under the House of York- the degeneration of feudalism (into, again, so-called 'bastard' feudalism) was the transformation of an exchange-based society to a 'cash'-based one. Of course this had been developing over the centuries but the wars of the mid-15th C. had retarded this. The bottom line mean, more cash = more spent on arts, literature etc.

That geezer sounds like he don't know his Aris from his elbow eh!

Cheers for the solid post though :)

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a quote from a recent article on the debate over Richard III and what to do with his remains:
>
> "What is clear is this: After decades of war between rival houses, Richard III became the last king of England to fall on the battlefield, slain while defending his crown against a marauding upstart backed by France. That upstart, Henry VII, seeded a House of Tudor that over a century would break with the Vatican, humble mighty Spain and usher in a golden age of British arts, enlightenment and power."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-england-discovery-of-possible-royal-grave-digs-up-twisted-legacy-of-richard-iii/2012/11/24/33c34570-3314-11e2-92f0-496af208bf23_story_1.html
>
> Sounds to me as if some people, the article writer included, want to believe that Henry Tudor's victory at Bosworth was a good thing for England since it led, eventually, to Elizabeth I. The fact that Philip would not have attacked England if he had not had a better claim than the Tudors is not considered, nor is the probability that the golden age of literature and the Enlightenment would have occurred regardless of who sat on the throne of England.
>
> But, no--the Tudor victory brought an end to the Middle Ages in England and ushered in the Renaissance. Or so Richard's detractors want to think--even American writers like this one. (At least the writer concedes that he wasn't a hunchback and that the fate of the "Princes" is unknown, though he claims that even Ricardians concede that Richard "locked them up" in the Tower.)
>
> It's not just Shakespeare and More that we're up against. It's "Gloriana." And, of course, general ignorance of any history but the anecdotal variety taught in schools (Sir Walter Raleigh's cape, anyone?).
>
> BTW, there's a link to Gareth Russell (the novelist who said that England should not celebrate a child killer), who is now claiming that "I myself have been inundated with e-mails and comments from people calling themselves 'Ricardians,' who don't believe me when I say that I was demonising neither them nor King Richard III. I was just expressing an opinion about how inappropriate I found the idea of a state funeral for him, for a variety of reasons. Mostly though, I'm just bored by the comments - smug, know-it-all or vicious - that are left all over the web by Tudor enthusiasts, particularly by those who choose to remain anonymous."
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.co.uk/
>
> He's actually acknowledging and complaining about smug, know-it-all, vicious comments by *Tudor* enthusiasts while denying that he was "demonising" Richard? Wait, now. Isn't calling him a child killer and saying that the idea of a state funeral for him is "silly, frivolous, and border-line obscene" a smug, know-it-all vicious comment in itself? Oh, wait. He does call him a "*possible* child murderer," but he says straight out that he considers the murders to be fact. At any rate, now he's trying to defend himself from "people who call themselves 'Ricardians'" by claiming that he's not d
> "demonising" either Richard or us and is primarily criticizing *Tudor* partisans for what amounts to self-righteous maliciousness? I'm confused.
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/search?q=Richard+III
>
> And here's another one in which he tells us to grow up:
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/2012/11/richard-iii-and-me.html
>
> I could say the same to you, Gareth, and with better reason. At least, we're consistent!
>
> One last article citing his less than enlightened arguments for believing that Richard murdered his nephews:
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/missing-royals-and-murder-mysteries.html
>
> Carol
>

Sadly, in reading the comments section of The Guardian, it's obvious that people are completely ignorant of Richard the Third's history as well as being so deeply anti-monarchist that they want him to remain under a car park. Certainly, in these troubled times a "state funeral" might be a bit much. But a dignified Catholic burial for the last King to die in battle couldn't possibly cost that much!

When it comes to poor Richard and the fate of the two children, I can only quote Harper Lee: "Let the dead bury the dead, Mr Finch." All three have gone to their final reward and it is completely out of the hands of us mere mortals.



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a quote from a recent article on the debate over Richard III and what to do with his remains:
>
> "What is clear is this: After decades of war between rival houses, Richard III became the last king of England to fall on the battlefield, slain while defending his crown against a marauding upstart backed by France. That upstart, Henry VII, seeded a House of Tudor that over a century would break with the Vatican, humble mighty Spain and usher in a golden age of British arts, enlightenment and power."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-england-discovery-of-possible-royal-grave-digs-up-twisted-legacy-of-richard-iii/2012/11/24/33c34570-3314-11e2-92f0-496af208bf23_story_1.html
>
> Sounds to me as if some people, the article writer included, want to believe that Henry Tudor's victory at Bosworth was a good thing for England since it led, eventually, to Elizabeth I. The fact that Philip would not have attacked England if he had not had a better claim than the Tudors is not considered, nor is the probability that the golden age of literature and the Enlightenment would have occurred regardless of who sat on the throne of England.
>
> But, no--the Tudor victory brought an end to the Middle Ages in England and ushered in the Renaissance. Or so Richard's detractors want to think--even American writers like this one. (At least the writer concedes that he wasn't a hunchback and that the fate of the "Princes" is unknown, though he claims that even Ricardians concede that Richard "locked them up" in the Tower.)
>
> It's not just Shakespeare and More that we're up against. It's "Gloriana." And, of course, general ignorance of any history but the anecdotal variety taught in schools (Sir Walter Raleigh's cape, anyone?).
>
> BTW, there's a link to Gareth Russell (the novelist who said that England should not celebrate a child killer), who is now claiming that "I myself have been inundated with e-mails and comments from people calling themselves 'Ricardians,' who don't believe me when I say that I was demonising neither them nor King Richard III. I was just expressing an opinion about how inappropriate I found the idea of a state funeral for him, for a variety of reasons. Mostly though, I'm just bored by the comments - smug, know-it-all or vicious - that are left all over the web by Tudor enthusiasts, particularly by those who choose to remain anonymous."
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.co.uk/
>
> He's actually acknowledging and complaining about smug, know-it-all, vicious comments by *Tudor* enthusiasts while denying that he was "demonising" Richard? Wait, now. Isn't calling him a child killer and saying that the idea of a state funeral for him is "silly, frivolous, and border-line obscene" a smug, know-it-all vicious comment in itself? Oh, wait. He does call him a "*possible* child murderer," but he says straight out that he considers the murders to be fact. At any rate, now he's trying to defend himself from "people who call themselves 'Ricardians'" by claiming that he's not d
> "demonising" either Richard or us and is primarily criticizing *Tudor* partisans for what amounts to self-righteous maliciousness? I'm confused.
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/search?q=Richard+III
>
> And here's another one in which he tells us to grow up:
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/2012/11/richard-iii-and-me.html
>
> I could say the same to you, Gareth, and with better reason. At least, we're consistent!
>
> One last article citing his less than enlightened arguments for believing that Richard murdered his nephews:
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/missing-royals-and-murder-mysteries.html
>
> Carol
>

If Phillip II had a better claim than his wife then her Cardinal had a better claim than either of them.

As for this self-appointed expert: "ci-devant", he is a DEVIANT from the truth.


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a quote from a recent article on the debate over Richard III and what to do with his remains:
>
> "What is clear is this: After decades of war between rival houses, Richard III became the last king of England to fall on the battlefield, slain while defending his crown against a marauding upstart backed by France. That upstart, Henry VII, seeded a House of Tudor that over a century would break with the Vatican, humble mighty Spain and usher in a golden age of British arts, enlightenment and power."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-england-discovery-of-possible-royal-grave-digs-up-twisted-legacy-of-richard-iii/2012/11/24/33c34570-3314-11e2-92f0-496af208bf23_story_1.html
>
> Sounds to me as if some people, the article writer included, want to believe that Henry Tudor's victory at Bosworth was a good thing for England since it led, eventually, to Elizabeth I. The fact that Philip would not have attacked England if he had not had a better claim than the Tudors is not considered, nor is the probability that the golden age of literature and the Enlightenment would have occurred regardless of who sat on the throne of England.
>
> But, no--the Tudor victory brought an end to the Middle Ages in England and ushered in the Renaissance. Or so Richard's detractors want to think--even American writers like this one. (At least the writer concedes that he wasn't a hunchback and that the fate of the "Princes" is unknown, though he claims that even Ricardians concede that Richard "locked them up" in the Tower.)
>
> It's not just Shakespeare and More that we're up against. It's "Gloriana." And, of course, general ignorance of any history but the anecdotal variety taught in schools (Sir Walter Raleigh's cape, anyone?).
>
> BTW, there's a link to Gareth Russell (the novelist who said that England should not celebrate a child killer), who is now claiming that "I myself have been inundated with e-mails and comments from people calling themselves 'Ricardians,' who don't believe me when I say that I was demonising neither them nor King Richard III. I was just expressing an opinion about how inappropriate I found the idea of a state funeral for him, for a variety of reasons. Mostly though, I'm just bored by the comments - smug, know-it-all or vicious - that are left all over the web by Tudor enthusiasts, particularly by those who choose to remain anonymous."
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.co.uk/
>
> He's actually acknowledging and complaining about smug, know-it-all, vicious comments by *Tudor* enthusiasts while denying that he was "demonising" Richard? Wait, now. Isn't calling him a child killer and saying that the idea of a state funeral for him is "silly, frivolous, and border-line obscene" a smug, know-it-all vicious comment in itself? Oh, wait. He does call him a "*possible* child murderer," but he says straight out that he considers the murders to be fact. At any rate, now he's trying to defend himself from "people who call themselves 'Ricardians'" by claiming that he's not d
> "demonising" either Richard or us and is primarily criticizing *Tudor* partisans for what amounts to self-righteous maliciousness? I'm confused.
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/search?q=Richard+III
>
> And here's another one in which he tells us to grow up:
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/2012/11/richard-iii-and-me.html
>
> I could say the same to you, Gareth, and with better reason. At least, we're consistent!
>
> One last article citing his less than enlightened arguments for believing that Richard murdered his nephews:
>
> http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/missing-royals-and-murder-mysteries.html
>
> Carol
>

When (not if) the bones are confirmed as Richard's, after the documentary airs, as Leicester's museum and Bosworth's expanded museum show what a grand king he really was, when Richard becomes a pop-culture icon next year and starts being 'profitable' to authors and others, I think you'll see a decided change in attitude.

I predict even Richard's detractors will luv him then, because they'll make more money and get more attention by luvving him then.

~Cynical!Weds


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a quote from a recent article on the debate over Richard III and what to do with his remains:

<snipped because of the news article's/comments' nastiness>