ARTICLES: R3 Coverage

Telegraph article: "The Hunchback is Dead -- long give Good King Richard." Basic background, and author Chris Skidmore has written a book on Bosworth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9842360/The-hunchback-is-dead-long-live-Good-King-Richard.html

Independent article: "Is the body in the car park really Richard III? At last, the answer...and it could prove that he really didn't commit the greatest crime in royal history" (Article calls for exhuming the child-bones in Westminster and seeing if they're the princes if skeleton in car park proves to be Richard...which in no way would prove R3's guilt or innocence in the "murder", but heigh ho....)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/is-the-body-in-the-car-park-really-richard-iii-at-last-the-answer-8477886.html

Telegraph article: "Carpark skeleton: row over new burial site for Richard III -- The remains of Richard III have yet to be formally identified, but already a tug-of-war has begun over where and how the skeleton unearthed in a Leicester car park should be laid to rest." They even manage to get in a slur regarding York never coming for his bones.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9842559/Carpark-skeleton-row-over-new-burial-site-for-Richard-III.html

Monday's coming!

Wednesday wrote:
>
> Telegraph article: "The Hunchback is Dead -- long give Good King Richard." Basic background, and author Chris Skidmore has written a book on Bosworth.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9842360/The-hunchback-is-dead-long-live-Good-King-Richard.html {Snip}

Carol responds:

While the article doesn't seem hostile to Richard, it contains a number of errors. The "pile of bones" should be "an articulated skeleton"; the "pauper's grave" should be "burial in the church choir, a place of honor"; Henry Tudor was never a "strong claimant" with mass popular support; he did not unite the Houses or York and Lancaster with his marriage to Elizabeth of York given that he was not of the House of Lancaster (we know that many people had better Lancastrian claims); the "curvature of the spine" is not identified as scoliosis or distinguished from a hunchback; the deaths of the "Princes" is treated as a fact; "half or Richard's army refused to fight" is a misleading and perhaps mistaken assumption (someone with numbers, please post them); Richard did not "don his crown" before the charge (he'd been wearing it the whole time); and "without Richard there would have been no Tudor dynasty" should be without Richard's death in battle, there would have been no Tudor dynasty." The dissolution of the monasteries, along with the end of British Roman Catholicism, seems also somehow attributable to Richard thanks to careless wording.

If Chris Skidmore's "Bosworth" is this full of errors, I'm not looking forward to it!

Carol

Carol
Perhaps forwarding your very valid points to the editor?
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:31 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Telegraph article: "The Hunchback is Dead -- long give Good King Richard." Basic background, and author Chris Skidmore has written a book on Bosworth.
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9842360/The-hunchback-is-dead-long-live-Good-King-Richard.html {Snip}
>
> Carol responds:
>
> While the article doesn't seem hostile to Richard, it contains a number of errors. The "pile of bones" should be "an articulated skeleton"; the "pauper's grave" should be "burial in the church choir, a place of honor"; Henry Tudor was never a "strong claimant" with mass popular support; he did not unite the Houses or York and Lancaster with his marriage to Elizabeth of York given that he was not of the House of Lancaster (we know that many people had better Lancastrian claims); the "curvature of the spine" is not identified as scoliosis or distinguished from a hunchback; the deaths of the "Princes" is treated as a fact; "half or Richard's army refused to fight" is a misleading and perhaps mistaken assumption (someone with numbers, please post them); Richard did not "don his crown" before the charge (he'd been wearing it the whole time); and "without Richard there would have been no Tudor dynasty" should be without Richard's death in battle, there would have been no Tudor dynasty." The dissolution of the monasteries, along with the end of British Roman Catholicism, seems also somehow attributable to Richard thanks to careless wording.
>
> If Chris Skidmore's "Bosworth" is this full of errors, I'm not looking forward to it!
>
> Carol
>
>

Agreed, but he's an MP, he's young and he's on our side. Starkey makes a load of sweeping statements (he drove me mad tonight) and Tony Robinson showed us just how the Tower meeting went with Hastings (with the Princes looking out the window as he was executed). So by all means point it out, but I'd have thought we need all the PR help we can get, so be gentle - you could offer to help, he could probably do with it?  Cheers Hilary



________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 19:22
Subject: Re: Re: ARTICLES: R3 Coverage

 

Carol
Perhaps forwarding your very valid points to the editor?
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:31 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Telegraph article: "The Hunchback is Dead -- long give Good King Richard." Basic background, and author Chris Skidmore has written a book on Bosworth.
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9842360/The-hunchback-is-dead-long-live-Good-King-Richard.html {Snip}
>
> Carol responds:
>
> While the article doesn't seem hostile to Richard, it contains a number of errors. The "pile of bones" should be "an articulated skeleton"; the "pauper's grave" should be "burial in the church choir, a place of honor"; Henry Tudor was never a "strong claimant" with mass popular support; he did not unite the Houses or York and Lancaster with his marriage to Elizabeth of York given that he was not of the House of Lancaster (we know that many people had better Lancastrian claims); the "curvature of the spine" is not identified as scoliosis or distinguished from a hunchback; the deaths of the "Princes" is treated as a fact; "half or Richard's army refused to fight" is a misleading and perhaps mistaken assumption (someone with numbers, please post them); Richard did not "don his crown" before the charge (he'd been wearing it the whole time); and "without Richard there would have been no Tudor dynasty" should be without Richard's death in battle, there would
have been no Tudor dynasty." The dissolution of the monasteries, along with the end of British Roman Catholicism, seems also somehow attributable to Richard thanks to careless wording.
>
> If Chris Skidmore's "Bosworth" is this full of errors, I'm not looking forward to it!
>
> Carol
>
>

Carol earlier:
> >
> > While the article doesn't seem hostile to Richard, it contains a number of errors. The "pile of bones" should be "an articulated skeleton"; the "pauper's grave" should be "burial in the church choir, a place of honor"; [snip] and "without Richard there would have been no Tudor dynasty" should be without Richard's death in battle, there would have been no Tudor dynasty." The dissolution of the monasteries, along with the end of British Roman Catholicism, seems also somehow attributable to Richard thanks to careless wording. [snip]

George responded:

Carol
> Perhaps forwarding your very valid points to the editor?

Carol again:

Thanks, George. I thought about posting them as a comment, but you have to register. I might post just this snipped version since those errors could be easily corrected. Or, rather, this snipped version edited for tact and clarity.

Carol