Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end:

Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:

Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne

King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial

The skeleton of England's much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html

--Johanne Tournier (jltournier60@...)

I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "webmaster@..." <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
>
> Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
>
> King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>
> The skeleton of England's much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
>
> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
>
> --Johanne Tournier (jltournier60@...)
>

George, I have no problem with Shakespeare.  What I do have is a problem with the vast numbers of people who seem to think he was a historian, not a bloody writer of fiction.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 17:19
Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial

 
I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "mailto:webmaster%40thestar.ca" mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> wrote:

> Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
>
> Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
>
> King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>
> The skeleton of England's much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
>
> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
>
> --Johanne Tournier (mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com)
>

Liz
I totally agree
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:42 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> George, I have no problem with Shakespeare. What I do have is a problem with the vast numbers of people who seem to think he was a historian, not a bloody writer of fiction.
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 17:19
> Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>
>
> I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
> If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
> It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "mailto:webmaster%40thestar.ca" mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
> >
> > Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
> >
> > King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
> >
> > The skeleton of England's much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
> >
> > http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
> >
> > --Johanne Tournier (mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The same people probably think the same about Thomas More....

One article I read yesterday by a 'historian' reckons that members of the Society believe that The Daughter of Time is actually history and not fiction...I found that quite funny....Eileen
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> George, I have no problem with Shakespeare.  What I do have is a problem with the vast numbers of people who seem to think he was a historian, not a bloody writer of fiction.
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: ""
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 17:19
> Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>
>  
> I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
> If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
> It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "mailto:webmaster%40thestar.ca" mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
> >
> > Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
> >
> > King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
> >
> > The skeleton of England’s much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
> >
> > http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
> >
> > --Johanne Tournier (mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Compared to Weir and Hicks, it is the verbatim truth!

----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial




The same people probably think the same about Thomas More....

One article I read yesterday by a 'historian' reckons that members of the Society believe that The Daughter of Time is actually history and not fiction...I found that quite funny....Eileen
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> George, I have no problem with Shakespeare. What I do have is a problem with the vast numbers of people who seem to think he was a historian, not a bloody writer of fiction.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: ""
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 17:19
> Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>
> Â
> I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
> If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
> It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "mailto:webmaster%40thestar.ca" mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
> >
> > Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
> >
> > King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
> >
> > The skeleton of Englandâ?Ts much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
> >
> > http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
> >
> > --Johanne Tournier (mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

ROTHL...I think they make it up as they go along....:0)

--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Compared to Weir and Hicks, it is the verbatim truth!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>
>
>
>
> The same people probably think the same about Thomas More....
>
> One article I read yesterday by a 'historian' reckons that members of the Society believe that The Daughter of Time is actually history and not fiction...I found that quite funny....Eileen
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > George, I have no problem with Shakespeare. What I do have is a problem with the vast numbers of people who seem to think he was a historian, not a bloody writer of fiction.
> > Â
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 17:19
> > Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
> >
> > Â
> > I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
> > If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
> > It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "mailto:webmaster%40thestar.ca" mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
> > >
> > > Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
> > >
> > > King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
> > >
> > > The skeleton of Englandâ?Ts much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
> > >
> > > http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
> > >
> > > --Johanne Tournier (mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes it is odd that people accept all his "histories" as true and not just stories. Look at how people take his version of Henry V as being true as well as his hatchet jobs on Richard and Macbeth, when of course Henry [did anyone dare call him Hal?] never went carousing with anyone like Falstaff and was a bit of a shit, certainly not a hero! Just because he beat the French, something I think Richard might have considered doing at some stage, had he lived.
Paul



Richard Liveth Yet!




On 5 Feb 2013, at 17:19, George Butterfield wrote:

> I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
> If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
> It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "webmaster@..." <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>> Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
>>
>> Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
>>
>> King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>>
>> The skeleton of England's much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
>>
>> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
>>
>> --Johanne Tournier (jltournier60@...)
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Paul,
 
if Richard had lived long enough we'd all be talking about "good King Richard" who whupped the French and gave women the vote in 1517.  (Well maybe not) 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:30
Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial

Yes it is odd that people accept all his "histories" as true and not just stories. Look at how people take his version of Henry V as being true as well as his hatchet jobs on Richard and Macbeth, when of course Henry [did anyone dare call him Hal?] never went carousing with anyone like Falstaff and was a bit of a shit, certainly not a hero! Just because he beat the French, something I think Richard might have considered doing at some stage, had he lived.
Paul



Richard Liveth Yet!




On 5 Feb 2013, at 17:19, George Butterfield wrote:

> I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
> If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
> It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "webmaster@..." <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>> Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
>>
>> Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
>>
>> King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>>
>> The skeleton of England's much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
>>
>> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
>>
>> --Johanne Tournier (jltournier60@...)
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Now that has made me sad.....:0/ I have always hated injustice....Eileen

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Paul,
>  
> if Richard had lived long enough we'd all be talking about "good King Richard" who whupped the French and gave women the vote in 1517.  (Well maybe not) 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:30
> Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>
> Yes it is odd that people accept all his "histories" as true and not just stories. Look at how people take his version of Henry V as being true as well as his hatchet jobs on Richard and Macbeth, when of course Henry [did anyone dare call him Hal?] never went carousing with anyone like Falstaff and was a bit of a shit, certainly not a hero! Just because he beat the French, something I think Richard might have considered doing at some stage, had he lived.
> Paul
>
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2013, at 17:19, George Butterfield wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
> > If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
> > It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "webmaster@..." wrote:
> >
> >> Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
> >>
> >> Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
> >>
> >> King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
> >>
> >> The skeleton of England’s much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
> >>
> >> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
> >>
> >> --Johanne Tournier (jltournier60@...)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

As I was driving to a noon meeting, a news story was presented on Fox News. The presenter brought up Shakespeare and remarked that he was writing to Tudor audience. So the story of King Richard was distorted to please the audience, and I suspect to keep Mr. Shakespeare's head connected to the rest of him!




From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:49 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial



The same people probably think the same about Thomas More....

One article I read yesterday by a 'historian' reckons that members of the Society believe that The Daughter of Time is actually history and not fiction...I found that quite funny....Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>
> George, I have no problem with Shakespeare. What I do have is a problem with the vast numbers of people who seem to think he was a historian, not a bloody writer of fiction.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 17:19
> Subject: Re: Story from the thestar.com: King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
>
> Â
> I don't understand why people have such a problem with Shakespeare being inaccurate, he was a playwright not a historian. His total aim in life was to sell plays, you have to have a goodie and a baddie to cheer and boo.
> If you had to change the truth to make it more interesting and a better play, that's the name of the game.
> It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "mailto:webmaster%40thestar.ca" mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Johanne Tournier has shared a story with you from thestar.com:
> >
> > Here's a good one! An editorial, no less, opining that the Bard got Richard's appearance wrong, so "what else did he get wrong?" Wonderful! Johanne
> >
> > King Richard III may do good in the end: Editorial
> >
> > The skeleton of Englandâ¬"s much-maligned King Richard III has been identified, and DNA from a Canadian family played a role.
> >
> > http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/04/king_richard_iii_may_do_good_in_the_end_editorial.html
> >
> > --Johanne Tournier (mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

liz williams wrote:
>
> George, I have no problem with Shakespeare.  What I do have is a problem with the vast numbers of people who seem to think he was a historian, not a bloody writer of fiction.

Carol responds:

That view, unfortunately, has a long historian. The historian Hume, whose history of England was published in 1826, took his Richard III from Shakespeare. So did Richard's first scholarly biographer (not counting Buck or Walpole, who weren't writing biographies, wrote, "I must record my impression that a minute study of the facts of Richard's life has tended more and more to convince me of the general fidelity of the portrait with which we have been made familiar by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More."

Unfortunately, this view is still held by many historians, not all of them specialists in the Tudor period like Starkey. Until historians get it right (and until historical views of Richard are as popular as Shakespeare's too-often performed play, which has even been performed in China), we will have to contend with the murderous, malformed hunchback. I can't even count the number of times I've seen reporters and others refer to Richard's reign as "bloody." A few executions of traitors, one quickly put-down rebellion, and one battle account for no more deaths than most comparable two-year periods between Henry IV's usurpation and the Battle of Stoke. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the reign of the peace-loving Henry VI was a great deal bloodier than Richard's, and a great many Yorkist heirs would have lived long, prosperous lives had Richard won Bosworth.

Sorry for the rant. I'm not implying that you disagree with me. It's the historians who for one minute consider Shakespeare as a source that I'm arguing with. (At least no one that I know of takes the Gloucester of the Henry VI plays at face value, but they blithely sweep such distortions as an adult Richard fighting at Sandal Castle while his little brother, Edmund, is murdered under the rug.)

Carol, who wishes that Shakespeare had stayed with romantic comedies and sonnets!

Carol earlier:
>
> That view, unfortunately, has a long historian. [snip]

Carol again:

"A long history," I meant. Sorry!

Carol

I do have a problem with Shakespeare I had to memorize vast amounts of sonnets, and plays for my A levels just when Lady Chatterly looked far more interesting but was not on syllabus!
O'well such is life
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 5, 2013, at 7:57 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> liz williams wrote:
> >
> > George, I have no problem with Shakespeare. What I do have is a problem with the vast numbers of people who seem to think he was a historian, not a bloody writer of fiction.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That view, unfortunately, has a long historian. The historian Hume, whose history of England was published in 1826, took his Richard III from Shakespeare. So did Richard's first scholarly biographer (not counting Buck or Walpole, who weren't writing biographies, wrote, "I must record my impression that a minute study of the facts of Richard's life has tended more and more to convince me of the general fidelity of the portrait with which we have been made familiar by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More."
>
> Unfortunately, this view is still held by many historians, not all of them specialists in the Tudor period like Starkey. Until historians get it right (and until historical views of Richard are as popular as Shakespeare's too-often performed play, which has even been performed in China), we will have to contend with the murderous, malformed hunchback. I can't even count the number of times I've seen reporters and others refer to Richard's reign as "bloody." A few executions of traitors, one quickly put-down rebellion, and one battle account for no more deaths than most comparable two-year periods between Henry IV's usurpation and the Battle of Stoke. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the reign of the peace-loving Henry VI was a great deal bloodier than Richard's, and a great many Yorkist heirs would have lived long, prosperous lives had Richard won Bosworth.
>
> Sorry for the rant. I'm not implying that you disagree with me. It's the historians who for one minute consider Shakespeare as a source that I'm arguing with. (At least no one that I know of takes the Gloucester of the Henry VI plays at face value, but they blithely sweep such distortions as an adult Richard fighting at Sandal Castle while his little brother, Edmund, is murdered under the rug.)
>
> Carol, who wishes that Shakespeare had stayed with romantic comedies and sonnets!
>
>