A historian defends Richard

Yes, he's American and he's not a medievalist, but historian Andrew Roberts has defended Richard in the very prestigious Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?KEYWORDS=richard+iii

I think he's mistaken on one or two details (Richard ending press censorship, for one), but you (plural) should like "Shakespeare Has a {Parking] Lot to Answer for." I hope that it will be copied in other papers worldwide. (I didn't read the comments though I hope they would be less idiotic than usual coming from readers of this particular paper.)

Carol

Andrew Roberts is distinctly British and, although I've liked one of his books, he's rather too right wing for me to feel entirely comfortable with him. But it's a decent article.

Jonathan

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Andrew Roberts is distinctly British and, although I've liked one of his books, he's rather too right wing for me to feel entirely comfortable with him. But it's a decent article.
>
> Jonathan

Carol responds:

Sorry about that! I assumed that he was American because he was writing in The Wall Street Journal. But the fact that he's British and writing "a decent article" quite favorable to Richard should provide even more comfort compared with so many of the reactions we've seen recently.

BTW, I just watched the Channel 4 documentary (not blocked for Americans, yet, anyway, if you access it directly from You Tube. I came away really liking Philippa despite her emotional reactions--the way the scientists carelessly threw around the word "hunchback" must have been very disturbing to her, and it was very unprofessional on their part. Thank goodness one of them ultimately conceded that the word wasn't a scientific term and they were loosely using it to mean a crooked spine that would not have been visible unless Richard was "on the beach" (in modern swimming trunks). I also liked Simon Farnaby and watching his conversion into a Ricardian. I don't think I want the DVD (if I change my mind, George, I'll let you know), but I did find it fascinating. I'm not thrilled by the way that certain aspects of the story were presented, but I hope that it will at least arouse curiosity and show that there are two or more sides to the story. And I was quite pleased with Tony Pollard's attitude. Even though he thinks that Richard killed his nephews, he thinks it was a political necessity and not the act of a tyrant--or that's the impression I got. A big change from the cocky Pollard of "The Trial of Richard III." Being "of a certain age" mellows some people.

To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that Richard was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that people were looking for in another thread?

Carol

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 2:57
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard

> To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that
Richard was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that
people were looking for in another thread?

---

I don't think so, unfortunately.  (Oh, and quite understandable that you might assume he's American - like Niall Ferguson, he's pretty much based his career over there in recent years - lucrative lecturing and speaking engagements).  He's written some interesting modern history - 19thC through to WWII - but he's a very patrician figure who I don't think would provide the engaging front that the Society could do with.  I also seem to remember that he became pretty much the unofficial court historian to the George W Bush Presidency, so he'd bring a lot of baggage with him in terms of being associated with controversial figures (to put it mildly!) that we could probably do without...

Jonathan


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 2:57
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard


 


--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Andrew Roberts is distinctly British and, although I've liked one of his books, he's rather too right wing for me to feel entirely comfortable with him. But it's a decent article.
>
> Jonathan

Carol responds:

Sorry about that! I assumed that he was American because he was writing in The Wall Street Journal. But the fact that he's British and writing "a decent article" quite favorable to Richard should provide even more comfort compared with so many of the reactions we've seen recently.

BTW, I just watched the Channel 4 documentary (not blocked for Americans, yet, anyway, if you access it directly from You Tube. I came away really liking Philippa despite her emotional reactions--the way the scientists carelessly threw around the word "hunchback" must have been very disturbing to her, and it was very unprofessional on their part. Thank goodness one of them ultimately conceded that the word wasn't a scientific term and they were loosely using it to mean a crooked spine that would not have been visible unless Richard was "on the beach" (in modern swimming trunks). I also liked Simon Farnaby and watching his conversion into a Ricardian. I don't think I want the DVD (if I change my mind, George, I'll let you know), but I did find it fascinating. I'm not thrilled by the way that certain aspects of the story were presented, but I hope that it will at least arouse curiosity and show that there are two or more sides to the story. And I was quite
pleased with Tony Pollard's attitude. Even though he thinks that Richard killed his nephews, he thinks it was a political necessity and not the act of a tyrant--or that's the impression I got. A big change from the cocky Pollard of "The Trial of Richard III." Being "of a certain age" mellows some people.

To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that Richard was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that people were looking for in another thread?

Carol

Andrew was in the Mail yesterday with a similar article. He is British, if US-based, and I have met him.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:50 AM
Subject: A historian defends Richard



Yes, he's American and he's not a medievalist, but historian Andrew Roberts has defended Richard in the very prestigious Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?KEYWORDS=richard+iii

I think he's mistaken on one or two details (Richard ending press censorship, for one), but you (plural) should like "Shakespeare Has a {Parking] Lot to Answer for." I hope that it will be copied in other papers worldwide. (I didn't read the comments though I hope they would be less idiotic than usual coming from readers of this particular paper.)

Carol

*I agree with you Carol, I esp liked the elderly lady art historian too -
who came across so well in explaining the devious alterations to Richards
portraits, done by the Tudors & was obviously a revelation to Simon -
perhaps pushing him more to become 'A Ricardian'...*
*I thought he was a good presenter with a little fun about him
*
*
*
*
*
*Lisa
*
On 6 February 2013 22:57, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Roberts is distinctly British and, although I've liked one of his
> books, he's rather too right wing for me to feel entirely comfortable with
> him. But it's a decent article.
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry about that! I assumed that he was American because he was writing in
> The Wall Street Journal. But the fact that he's British and writing "a
> decent article" quite favorable to Richard should provide even more comfort
> compared with so many of the reactions we've seen recently.
>
> BTW, I just watched the Channel 4 documentary (not blocked for Americans,
> yet, anyway, if you access it directly from You Tube. I came away really
> liking Philippa despite her emotional reactions--the way the scientists
> carelessly threw around the word "hunchback" must have been very disturbing
> to her, and it was very unprofessional on their part. Thank goodness one of
> them ultimately conceded that the word wasn't a scientific term and they
> were loosely using it to mean a crooked spine that would not have been
> visible unless Richard was "on the beach" (in modern swimming trunks). I
> also liked Simon Farnaby and watching his conversion into a Ricardian. I
> don't think I want the DVD (if I change my mind, George, I'll let you
> know), but I did find it fascinating. I'm not thrilled by the way that
> certain aspects of the story were presented, but I hope that it will at
> least arouse curiosity and show that there are two or more sides to the
> story. And I was quite pleased with Tony Pollard's attitude. Even though he
> thinks that Richard killed his nephews, he thinks it was a political
> necessity and not the act of a tyrant--or that's the impression I got. A
> big change from the cocky Pollard of "The Trial of Richard III." Being "of
> a certain age" mellows some people.
>
> To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that Richard
> was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that people were
> looking for in another thread?
>
> Carol
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

an excellent article but as for many of the comments (I only had a quick look admittedly) they may be a bit more articulate but they are still full of the usual anti Richard garbage. 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:50
Subject: A historian defends Richard

 
Yes, he's American and he's not a medievalist, but historian Andrew Roberts has defended Richard in the very prestigious Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?KEYWORDS=richard+iii

I think he's mistaken on one or two details (Richard ending press censorship, for one), but you (plural) should like "Shakespeare Has a {Parking] Lot to Answer for." I hope that it will be copied in other papers worldwide. (I didn't read the comments though I hope they would be less idiotic than usual coming from readers of this particular paper.)

Carol

The comments after this article were full of every lie and mistake perpetrated against Richard the Third! One moron claims that Richard murdered Clarence at the same time as he murdered the two children. Some claim the Tower was a prison. Some claim that because Thomas More was a saint he was also a fine historian. (No mention of the bit about being two years in the womb - guess the Cliff Notes didn't mention that!) All of them claim there are tons of evidence to convict Richard of the murder of the two kids but provide no - and I mean no - evidence! One guy says that Shakespeare was provided with secret information about Richard which he incorporated into his play.

Where do they get the nerve to write such stuff??? OK, I'm now gonna go have a stroke. Maire.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> an excellent article but as for many of the comments (I only had a quick look admittedly) they may be a bit more articulate but they are still full of the usual anti Richard garbage. 
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:50
> Subject: A historian defends Richard
>
>  
> Yes, he's American and he's not a medievalist, but historian Andrew Roberts has defended Richard in the very prestigious Wall Street Journal:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?KEYWORDS=richard+iii
>
> I think he's mistaken on one or two details (Richard ending press censorship, for one), but you (plural) should like "Shakespeare Has a {Parking] Lot to Answer for." I hope that it will be copied in other papers worldwide. (I didn't read the comments though I hope they would be less idiotic than usual coming from readers of this particular paper.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

But read the comments section after almost *any* news story and you'll find the same levels of ignorance and prejudice, regardless of the subject.  This isn't a sign that we need to educate people specifically about Richard - it's a sign that we need to educate them, full-stop (or at least take away all access to a keyboard!).

Jonathan




________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:31
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard


 


The comments after this article were full of every lie and mistake perpetrated against Richard the Third! One moron claims that Richard murdered Clarence at the same time as he murdered the two children. Some claim the Tower was a prison. Some claim that because Thomas More was a saint he was also a fine historian. (No mention of the bit about being two years in the womb - guess the Cliff Notes didn't mention that!) All of them claim there are tons of evidence to convict Richard of the murder of the two kids but provide no - and I mean no - evidence! One guy says that Shakespeare was provided with secret information about Richard which he incorporated into his play.

Where do they get the nerve to write such stuff??? OK, I'm now gonna go have a stroke. Maire.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> an excellent article but as for many of the comments (I only had a quick look admittedly) they may be a bit more articulate but they are still full of the usual anti Richard garbage. 
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:50
> Subject: A historian defends Richard
>
>  
> Yes, he's American and he's not a medievalist, but historian Andrew Roberts has defended Richard in the very prestigious Wall Street Journal:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?KEYWORDS=richard+iii
>
> I think he's mistaken on one or two details (Richard ending press censorship, for one), but you (plural) should like "Shakespeare Has a {Parking] Lot to Answer for." I hope that it will be copied in other papers worldwide. (I didn't read the comments though I hope they would be less idiotic than usual coming from readers of this particular paper.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think what disturbed me the most was the pontificating, bloviating self-assurance of the writers. This, of course, ties in with your idea that people are ignorant in general - not just about Richard Plantagenent. Maire.

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> But read the comments section after almost *any* news story and you'll find the same levels of ignorance and prejudice, regardless of the subject.  This isn't a sign that we need to educate people specifically about Richard - it's a sign that we need to educate them, full-stop (or at least take away all access to a keyboard!).
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:31
> Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
>
>
>  
>
>
> The comments after this article were full of every lie and mistake perpetrated against Richard the Third! One moron claims that Richard murdered Clarence at the same time as he murdered the two children. Some claim the Tower was a prison. Some claim that because Thomas More was a saint he was also a fine historian. (No mention of the bit about being two years in the womb - guess the Cliff Notes didn't mention that!) All of them claim there are tons of evidence to convict Richard of the murder of the two kids but provide no - and I mean no - evidence! One guy says that Shakespeare was provided with secret information about Richard which he incorporated into his play.
>
> Where do they get the nerve to write such stuff??? OK, I'm now gonna go have a stroke. Maire.
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > an excellent article but as for many of the comments (I only had a quick look admittedly) they may be a bit more articulate but they are still full of the usual anti Richard garbage. 
> >
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:50
> > Subject: A historian defends Richard
> >
> >  
> > Yes, he's American and he's not a medievalist, but historian Andrew Roberts has defended Richard in the very prestigious Wall Street Journal:
> >
> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?KEYWORDS=richard+iii
> >
> > I think he's mistaken on one or two details (Richard ending press censorship, for one), but you (plural) should like "Shakespeare Has a {Parking] Lot to Answer for." I hope that it will be copied in other papers worldwide. (I didn't read the comments though I hope they would be less idiotic than usual coming from readers of this particular paper.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Jonathan, ref reader comments to news articles,,, often I will respond and invite them to join the society for honest debate...Joseph Erbel Conrad's comments to the WSJ article seemed pretty enthused , lengthy, and seemingly academic.
Ray


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 8:45 am
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard




But read the comments section after almost *any* news story and you'll find the same levels of ignorance and prejudice, regardless of the subject. This isn't a sign that we need to educate people specifically about Richard - it's a sign that we need to educate them, full-stop (or at least take away all access to a keyboard!).

Jonathan

________________________________
From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:31
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard




The comments after this article were full of every lie and mistake perpetrated against Richard the Third! One moron claims that Richard murdered Clarence at the same time as he murdered the two children. Some claim the Tower was a prison. Some claim that because Thomas More was a saint he was also a fine historian. (No mention of the bit about being two years in the womb - guess the Cliff Notes didn't mention that!) All of them claim there are tons of evidence to convict Richard of the murder of the two kids but provide no - and I mean no - evidence! One guy says that Shakespeare was provided with secret information about Richard which he incorporated into his play.

Where do they get the nerve to write such stuff??? OK, I'm now gonna go have a stroke. Maire.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> an excellent article but as for many of the comments (I only had a quick look admittedly) they may be a bit more articulate but they are still full of the usual anti Richard garbage.Â
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:50
> Subject: A historian defends Richard
>
> Â
> Yes, he's American and he's not a medievalist, but historian Andrew Roberts has defended Richard in the very prestigious Wall Street Journal:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?KEYWORDS=richard+iii
>
> I think he's mistaken on one or two details (Richard ending press censorship, for one), but you (plural) should like "Shakespeare Has a {Parking] Lot to Answer for." I hope that it will be copied in other papers worldwide. (I didn't read the comments though I hope they would be less idiotic than usual coming from readers of this particular paper.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

If the subject isn't close to your heart, it can sometimes be amusing.  But if it is, it's infuriating.  I sometimes check the website of the newspaper I read.  It's  a quality broadsheet and so, you'd think, it's readers wouldn't be the empty-headed, knee-jerk 'Daily Mail' type.  But when I read comments on subjects as diverse as the budget deficit, immigration or gay marriage, I often come away feeling ashamed to be part of the readership.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:48
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard


 
I think what disturbed me the most was the pontificating, bloviating self-assurance of the writers. This, of course, ties in with your idea that people are ignorant in general - not just about Richard Plantagenent. Maire.

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> But read the comments section after almost *any* news story and you'll find the same levels of ignorance and prejudice, regardless of the subject.  This isn't a sign that we need to educate people specifically about Richard - it's a sign that we need to educate them, full-stop (or at least take away all access to a keyboard!).
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:31
> Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
>
>
>  
>
>
> The comments after this article were full of every lie and mistake perpetrated against Richard the Third! One moron claims that Richard murdered Clarence at the same time as he murdered the two children. Some claim the Tower was a prison. Some claim that because Thomas More was a saint he was also a fine historian. (No mention of the bit about being two years in the womb - guess the Cliff Notes didn't mention that!) All of them claim there are tons of evidence to convict Richard of the murder of the two kids but provide no - and I mean no - evidence! One guy says that Shakespeare was provided with secret information about Richard which he incorporated into his play.
>
> Where do they get the nerve to write such stuff??? OK, I'm now gonna go have a stroke. Maire.
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > an excellent article but as for many of the comments (I only had a quick look admittedly) they may be a bit more articulate but they are still full of the usual anti Richard garbage.à
> >
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:50
> > Subject: A historian defends Richard
> >
> > à
> > Yes, he's American and he's not a medievalist, but historian Andrew Roberts has defended Richard in the very prestigious Wall Street Journal:
> >
> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?KEYWORDS=richard+iii
> >
> > I think he's mistaken on one or two details (Richard ending press censorship, for one), but you (plural) should like "Shakespeare Has a {Parking] Lot to Answer for." I hope that it will be copied in other papers worldwide. (I didn't read the comments though I hope they would be less idiotic than usual coming from readers of this particular paper.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good approach!

Cheers

Jonathan




________________________________
From: raymond long <rrl1124@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:59
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard


 
Jonathan, ref reader comments to news articles,,, often I will respond and invite them to join the society for honest debate...Joseph Erbel Conrad's comments to the WSJ article seemed pretty enthused , lengthy, and seemingly academic.
Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
To: >
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 8:45 am
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard

But read the comments section after almost *any* news story and you'll find the same levels of ignorance and prejudice, regardless of the subject. This isn't a sign that we need to educate people specifically about Richard - it's a sign that we need to educate them, full-stop (or at least take away all access to a keyboard!).

Jonathan

________________________________
From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:31
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard

The comments after this article were full of every lie and mistake perpetrated against Richard the Third! One moron claims that Richard murdered Clarence at the same time as he murdered the two children. Some claim the Tower was a prison. Some claim that because Thomas More was a saint he was also a fine historian. (No mention of the bit about being two years in the womb - guess the Cliff Notes didn't mention that!) All of them claim there are tons of evidence to convict Richard of the murder of the two kids but provide no - and I mean no - evidence! One guy says that Shakespeare was provided with secret information about Richard which he incorporated into his play.

Where do they get the nerve to write such stuff??? OK, I'm now gonna go have a stroke. Maire.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> an excellent article but as for many of the comments (I only had a quick look admittedly) they may be a bit more articulate but they are still full of the usual anti Richard garbage.Â
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:50
> Subject: A historian defends Richard
>
> Â
> Yes, he's American and he's not a medievalist, but historian Andrew Roberts has defended Richard in the very prestigious Wall Street Journal:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?KEYWORDS=richard+iii
>
> I think he's mistaken on one or two details (Richard ending press censorship, for one), but you (plural) should like "Shakespeare Has a {Parking] Lot to Answer for." I hope that it will be copied in other papers worldwide. (I didn't read the comments though I hope they would be less idiotic than usual coming from readers of this particular paper.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

If it's any comfort, Jonathan, I think that there are "professional commenters" who go from site to site peddling their nonsense all over the place. They are not necessarily the readers of the newspaper whose articles they are commenting on.

And, of course, there are always the ever present trolls...

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> If the subject isn't close to your heart, it can sometimes be amusing.  But if it is, it's infuriating.  I sometimes check the website of the newspaper I read.  It's  a quality broadsheet and so, you'd think, it's readers wouldn't be the empty-headed, knee-jerk 'Daily Mail' type.  But when I read comments on subjects as diverse as the budget deficit, immigration or gay marriage, I often come away feeling ashamed to be part of the readership.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The people on the Wall St. Journal page seemed to be Alison Weir fans. It generally starts the same way:

"Alison Weir, one of the greatest historians in the English language, says that Richard the Third was a creep."

Me: "She's not a scholar. She doesn't even use footnotes!"

Them: "Oh, well. She's a popular historian - you can't expect her to use footnotes. But her conclusions about Richard the Third are VERY COMPELLING!"

Me: "If you want to read someone who is scholarly but not a fan of Richard, why not try Charles Ross?"

Them: "Who?"

--- In , "highland_katherine" wrote:
>
> If it's any comfort, Jonathan, I think that there are "professional commenters" who go from site to site peddling their nonsense all over the place. They are not necessarily the readers of the newspaper whose articles they are commenting on.
>
> And, of course, there are always the ever present trolls...
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > If the subject isn't close to your heart, it can sometimes be amusing.  But if it is, it's infuriating.  I sometimes check the website of the newspaper I read.  It's  a quality broadsheet and so, you'd think, it's readers wouldn't be the empty-headed, knee-jerk 'Daily Mail' type.  But when I read comments on subjects as diverse as the budget deficit, immigration or gay marriage, I often come away feeling ashamed to be part of the readership.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Carol earlier:
> > To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that Richard was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that people were looking for in another thread?
>
Jonathan responded:
> I don't think so, unfortunately. (Oh, and quite understandable that you might assume he's American - like Niall Ferguson, he's pretty much based his career over there in recent years - lucrative lecturing and speaking engagements). He's written some interesting modern history - 19thC through to WWII - but he's a very patrician figure who I don't think would provide the engaging front that the Society could do with. I also seem to remember that he became pretty much the unofficial court historian to the George W Bush Presidency, so he'd bring a lot of baggage with him in terms of being associated with controversial figures (to put it mildly!) that we could probably do without...

Carol responds:

Thanks, Jonathan. That's a very kind and tactful response to my error. I personally wouldn't mind a patrician historian (it's the image we Americans have of the educated Brit), but association with "Dubya" wouldn't help, you're right. (Completely OT, there's a sign on the Connecticut border that says, "Birthplace of George W. Bush. We apologize." I find it mildly amusing.) If we can't find a historian, I guess we'll just have to dress up Orlando Bloom as (a straight-backed) Richard and give him a crash course in Ricardiana!
Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure.

Carol

So is she "one of the greatest" historians or a "populist" historian (obvIously I do really know the answer) because you can't be both. 
 
I'm not logged onto that site but please feel free to mention that she doesn't even have a degree in  History.  (She trained as a teacher,as did I and apparently that was the time she studied history properly.  she says this herself.)
 
I am astounded that the ignorance of people continues to astound me.
 
Liz
 

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard

 


The people on the Wall St. Journal page seemed to be Alison Weir fans. It generally starts the same way:

"Alison Weir, one of the greatest historians in the English language, says that Richard the Third was a creep."

Me: "She's not a scholar. She doesn't even use footnotes!"

Them: "Oh, well. She's a popular historian - you can't expect her to use footnotes. But her conclusions about Richard the Third are VERY COMPELLING!"

Me: "If you want to read someone who is scholarly but not a fan of Richard, why not try Charles Ross?"

Them: "Who?"

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
>
> If it's any comfort, Jonathan, I think that there are "professional commenters" who go from site to site peddling their nonsense all over the place. They are not necessarily the readers of the newspaper whose articles they are commenting on.
>
> And, of course, there are always the ever present trolls...
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > If the subject isn't close to your heart, it can sometimes be amusing.  But if it is, it's infuriating.  I sometimes check the website of the newspaper I read.  It's  a quality broadsheet and so, you'd think, it's readers wouldn't be the empty-headed, knee-jerk 'Daily Mail' type.  But when I read comments on subjects as diverse as the budget deficit, immigration or gay marriage, I often come away feeling ashamed to be part of the readership.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Lisa wrote:
>
> *I agree with you Carol, I esp liked the elderly lady art historian too - who came across so well in explaining the devious alterations to Richards portraits, done by the Tudors & was obviously a revelation to Simon - perhaps pushing him more to become 'A Ricardian'...*
> *I thought he was a good presenter with a little fun about him

Carol responds:

Ironically, the elderly art historian is named Pamela Tudor-Craig. I wonder if she has a family connection to Henry VII that she's trying to compensate for! She also appeared in "The Trial of Richard III" but was treated rather dismissively, IIRC, by the prosecuting attorney. Anyway, I agree that she helped in transforming Simon into a Ricardian, but I think that he also genuinely liked and empathized with Philippa and came to understand her (and Richard) better as the program progressed. I hope someone sends him a copy of Kendall's biography and Annette's "Maligned King."

Are you familiar with "Horrible Histories"? If not, check out his recurring role as the Grim Reaper in the "Stupid Deaths" segments. Also check out "Richard III's song," which I hope they don't change now that the documentary has, according to tweets by fans of the program, "confirmed" Richard as a hunchback. They were actually discussing that topic. It's sad that a documentary we hoped would help Richard's cause seems to have backfired thanks to the "h" word.

Carol

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard


"Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to
settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the
credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a
whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure."

I wish I did have a suggestion, but I really can't think of anyone currently working in the field.  So really you're talking about busing someone in and hoping they'll subscribe to the Society's aims.  Annette would be good but, scholarly though her book is, she doesn't really pass the "formal" academic test.  Neither, of course, does Alison Weir, but the less said about her, the better!

The problem is, Ricardian Studies have been a niche of a niche for a very long time.  On the plus side, the events of the last five months should seriously invigorate them.  But it still means we might be waiting another decade or more for a popular AND academically respected historian to come along who's arrived at a revisionist outlook through his or her own research.

Jonathan





________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard


 
Carol earlier:
> > To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that Richard was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that people were looking for in another thread?
>
Jonathan responded:
> I don't think so, unfortunately. (Oh, and quite understandable that you might assume he's American - like Niall Ferguson, he's pretty much based his career over there in recent years - lucrative lecturing and speaking engagements). He's written some interesting modern history - 19thC through to WWII - but he's a very patrician figure who I don't think would provide the engaging front that the Society could do with. I also seem to remember that he became pretty much the unofficial court historian to the George W Bush Presidency, so he'd bring a lot of baggage with him in terms of being associated with controversial figures (to put it mildly!) that we could probably do without...

Carol responds:

Thanks, Jonathan. That's a very kind and tactful response to my error. I personally wouldn't mind a patrician historian (it's the image we Americans have of the educated Brit), but association with "Dubya" wouldn't help, you're right. (Completely OT, there's a sign on the Connecticut border that says, "Birthplace of George W. Bush. We apologize." I find it mildly amusing.) If we can't find a historian, I guess we'll just have to dress up Orlando Bloom as (a straight-backed) Richard and give him a crash course in Ricardiana!
Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure.

Carol

Maire wrote:
> The comments after this article were full of every lie and mistake perpetrated against Richard the Third! One moron claims that Richard murdered Clarence at the same time as he murdered the two children. Some claim the Tower was a prison. Some claim that because Thomas More was a saint he was also a fine historian. (No mention of the bit about being two years in the womb - guess the Cliff Notes didn't mention that!) All of them claim there are tons of evidence to convict Richard of the murder of the two kids but provide no - and I mean no - evidence! One guy says that Shakespeare was provided with secret information about Richard which he incorporated into his play.
>
> Where do they get the nerve to write such stuff??? OK, I'm now gonna go have a stroke. Maire.

Carol responds:

One consolation--any person with a degree of intelligence can recognize the ignorance of some of these people. It's the troll mentality and the anonymity afforded by the Internet. Possibly, the contrast between the article and the comments will send at least a few readers scurrying to find out more about the historical Richard III. The market is there for those who have researched his life and documents other than the chronicles to publish and sell their books. Strike while the iron is hot!

Carol

A historian is someone who does proper research and has at least an MA, possibly a PHD in the subject. Weir fits neither description and is a "historical writer".
My degree is in mathematics and I have an 'O' in history. I do not claim to be a historian, despite the development, and nor should she.

----- Original Message -----
From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard





The people on the Wall St. Journal page seemed to be Alison Weir fans. It generally starts the same way:

"Alison Weir, one of the greatest historians in the English language, says that Richard the Third was a creep."

Me: "She's not a scholar. She doesn't even use footnotes!"

Them: "Oh, well. She's a popular historian - you can't expect her to use footnotes. But her conclusions about Richard the Third are VERY COMPELLING!"

Me: "If you want to read someone who is scholarly but not a fan of Richard, why not try Charles Ross?"

Them: "Who?"

--- In , "highland_katherine" wrote:
>
> If it's any comfort, Jonathan, I think that there are "professional commenters" who go from site to site peddling their nonsense all over the place. They are not necessarily the readers of the newspaper whose articles they are commenting on.
>
> And, of course, there are always the ever present trolls...
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > If the subject isn't close to your heart, it can sometimes be amusing. But if it is, it's infuriating. I sometimes check the website of the newspaper I read. It's a quality broadsheet and so, you'd think, it's readers wouldn't be the empty-headed, knee-jerk 'Daily Mail' type. But when I read comments on subjects as diverse as the budget deficit, immigration or gay marriage, I often come away feeling ashamed to be part of the readership.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Simple: Dr. J.A-H.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard



From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard


"Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to
settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the
credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a
whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure."

I wish I did have a suggestion, but I really can't think of anyone currently working in the field. So really you're talking about busing someone in and hoping they'll subscribe to the Society's aims. Annette would be good but, scholarly though her book is, she doesn't really pass the "formal" academic test. Neither, of course, does Alison Weir, but the less said about her, the better!

The problem is, Ricardian Studies have been a niche of a niche for a very long time. On the plus side, the events of the last five months should seriously invigorate them. But it still means we might be waiting another decade or more for a popular AND academically respected historian to come along who's arrived at a revisionist outlook through his or her own research.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard



Carol earlier:
> > To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that Richard was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that people were looking for in another thread?
>
Jonathan responded:
> I don't think so, unfortunately. (Oh, and quite understandable that you might assume he's American - like Niall Ferguson, he's pretty much based his career over there in recent years - lucrative lecturing and speaking engagements). He's written some interesting modern history - 19thC through to WWII - but he's a very patrician figure who I don't think would provide the engaging front that the Society could do with. I also seem to remember that he became pretty much the unofficial court historian to the George W Bush Presidency, so he'd bring a lot of baggage with him in terms of being associated with controversial figures (to put it mildly!) that we could probably do without...

Carol responds:

Thanks, Jonathan. That's a very kind and tactful response to my error. I personally wouldn't mind a patrician historian (it's the image we Americans have of the educated Brit), but association with "Dubya" wouldn't help, you're right. (Completely OT, there's a sign on the Connecticut border that says, "Birthplace of George W. Bush. We apologize." I find it mildly amusing.) If we can't find a historian, I guess we'll just have to dress up Orlando Bloom as (a straight-backed) Richard and give him a crash course in Ricardiana!
Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure.

Carol

He's lovely but he's a linguist by training. Why not fund a scholarship like the Foundation?
We might then at least breed one - and have a choice in selecting one with charisma


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 16:28
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard

 

Simple: Dr. J.A-H.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard

From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard

"Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to
settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the
credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a
whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure."

I wish I did have a suggestion, but I really can't think of anyone currently working in the field. So really you're talking about busing someone in and hoping they'll subscribe to the Society's aims. Annette would be good but, scholarly though her book is, she doesn't really pass the "formal" academic test. Neither, of course, does Alison Weir, but the less said about her, the better!

The problem is, Ricardian Studies have been a niche of a niche for a very long time. On the plus side, the events of the last five months should seriously invigorate them. But it still means we might be waiting another decade or more for a popular AND academically respected historian to come along who's arrived at a revisionist outlook through his or her own research.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard

Carol earlier:
> > To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that Richard was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that people were looking for in another thread?
>
Jonathan responded:
> I don't think so, unfortunately. (Oh, and quite understandable that you might assume he's American - like Niall Ferguson, he's pretty much based his career over there in recent years - lucrative lecturing and speaking engagements). He's written some interesting modern history - 19thC through to WWII - but he's a very patrician figure who I don't think would provide the engaging front that the Society could do with. I also seem to remember that he became pretty much the unofficial court historian to the George W Bush Presidency, so he'd bring a lot of baggage with him in terms of being associated with controversial figures (to put it mildly!) that we could probably do without...

Carol responds:

Thanks, Jonathan. That's a very kind and tactful response to my error. I personally wouldn't mind a patrician historian (it's the image we Americans have of the educated Brit), but association with "Dubya" wouldn't help, you're right. (Completely OT, there's a sign on the Connecticut border that says, "Birthplace of George W. Bush. We apologize." I find it mildly amusing.) If we can't find a historian, I guess we'll just have to dress up Orlando Bloom as (a straight-backed) Richard and give him a crash course in Ricardiana!
Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure.

Carol

Definatley! I'd second that...

On 7 February 2013 12:28, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Simple: Dr. J.A-H.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jonathan Evans
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
>
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
> Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
>
> "Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to
> settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the
> credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a
> whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure."
>
> I wish I did have a suggestion, but I really can't think of anyone
> currently working in the field. So really you're talking about busing
> someone in and hoping they'll subscribe to the Society's aims. Annette
> would be good but, scholarly though her book is, she doesn't really pass
> the "formal" academic test. Neither, of course, does Alison Weir, but the
> less said about her, the better!
>
> The problem is, Ricardian Studies have been a niche of a niche for a very
> long time. On the plus side, the events of the last five months should
> seriously invigorate them. But it still means we might be waiting another
> decade or more for a popular AND academically respected historian to come
> along who's arrived at a revisionist outlook through his or her own
> research.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
> Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that
> Richard was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that people
> were looking for in another thread?
> >
> Jonathan responded:
> > I don't think so, unfortunately. (Oh, and quite understandable that you
> might assume he's American - like Niall Ferguson, he's pretty much based
> his career over there in recent years - lucrative lecturing and speaking
> engagements). He's written some interesting modern history - 19thC through
> to WWII - but he's a very patrician figure who I don't think would provide
> the engaging front that the Society could do with. I also seem to remember
> that he became pretty much the unofficial court historian to the George W
> Bush Presidency, so he'd bring a lot of baggage with him in terms of being
> associated with controversial figures (to put it mildly!) that we could
> probably do without...
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Jonathan. That's a very kind and tactful response to my error. I
> personally wouldn't mind a patrician historian (it's the image we Americans
> have of the educated Brit), but association with "Dubya" wouldn't help,
> you're right. (Completely OT, there's a sign on the Connecticut border that
> says, "Birthplace of George W. Bush. We apologize." I find it mildly
> amusing.) If we can't find a historian, I guess we'll just have to dress up
> Orlando Bloom as (a straight-backed) Richard and give him a crash course in
> Ricardiana!
> Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to
> settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the
> credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a
> whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Carol earlier:
> "Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure."

Jonathan responded:
> I wish I did have a suggestion, but I really can't think of anyone currently working in the field. [snip]
>
> The problem is, Ricardian Studies have been a niche of a niche for a very long time.  On the plus side, the events of the last five months should seriously invigorate them.  But it still means we might be waiting another decade or more for a popular AND academically respected historian to come along who's arrived at a revisionist outlook through his or her own research.

Carol responds:

Or maybe, just maybe, a historian who has been doing just that will step forward and seize the moment to display his or her credentials and establish the Society's position as a reputable, scholarly organization worthy of respect, not derision--not to mention what such a historian would do for Richard himself. At this point, we can only hope.

One more point--perhaps there will be a little less emphasis on the Tudor period and a little more on the Yorkist era in history programs at British universities. No hope for that in the U.S,. I'm afraid.

Carol




















Carol

I foresee an insoluble problem. As that Guardian article said, academic historians are supposed to stay impartial. They don't, of course, but they couldn't afford to identify too closely with an orgnaisation with a perceived agenda. Robert Hardy isn't a professional historian as such and as the Foundation's spokesperson will no doubt be disparaged for it by those who lay claim to academic credentials but only want to engage in ad hominem arguments - have you noticed, for instance, that these journalists are identifying Philippa as a member of the Society but not John Ashdown-Hill? Not easy to see who would or could do the job successfully.

Anyway, get rid of the crusading language on the website, and the emotional spokespersons, and bring the Society more closely into line with its neutral stated aim of promoting research in order to arrive at a better understanding of Richard's life and times, and having it stick firmly to highly scholarly output - and the ordinary membership would dry up. No membership, no funds.

I think the Society is fairly successfully treading the tightrope. Fortunately, due to the Ricardian I think a lot of regular historians of the period know perfectly well that the Society has good academic credentials. Getting that message across to the media is a bit harder.

Marie



--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
> Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
>
>
> "Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to
> settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the
> credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a
> whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure."
>
> I wish I did have a suggestion, but I really can't think of anyone currently working in the field.  So really you're talking about busing someone in and hoping they'll subscribe to the Society's aims.  Annette would be good but, scholarly though her book is, she doesn't really pass the "formal" academic test.  Neither, of course, does Alison Weir, but the less said about her, the better!
>
> The problem is, Ricardian Studies have been a niche of a niche for a very long time.  On the plus side, the events of the last five months should seriously invigorate them.  But it still means we might be waiting another decade or more for a popular AND academically respected historian to come along who's arrived at a revisionist outlook through his or her own research.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:52
> Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
>
>
>  
> Carol earlier:
> > > To return to the article, a British male historian who thinks that Richard was wronged by Shakespeare. Have we found the spokesman that people were looking for in another thread?
> >
> Jonathan responded:
> > I don't think so, unfortunately. (Oh, and quite understandable that you might assume he's American - like Niall Ferguson, he's pretty much based his career over there in recent years - lucrative lecturing and speaking engagements). He's written some interesting modern history - 19thC through to WWII - but he's a very patrician figure who I don't think would provide the engaging front that the Society could do with. I also seem to remember that he became pretty much the unofficial court historian to the George W Bush Presidency, so he'd bring a lot of baggage with him in terms of being associated with controversial figures (to put it mildly!) that we could probably do without...
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Jonathan. That's a very kind and tactful response to my error. I personally wouldn't mind a patrician historian (it's the image we Americans have of the educated Brit), but association with "Dubya" wouldn't help, you're right. (Completely OT, there's a sign on the Connecticut border that says, "Birthplace of George W. Bush. We apologize." I find it mildly amusing.) If we can't find a historian, I guess we'll just have to dress up Orlando Bloom as (a straight-backed) Richard and give him a crash course in Ricardiana!
> Seriously, do you have any suggestions for a spokesman? I don't want to settle for a kinder, gentler A. J. Pollard, who has the charm and the credentials but still holds views that don't represent the society as a whole. You know what I mean, I'm sure.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> A historian is someone who does proper research and has at least an MA, possibly a PHD in the subject. Weir fits neither description and is a "historical writer".
> My degree is in mathematics and I have an 'O' in history. I do not claim to be a historian, despite the development, and nor should she.

Carol responds:

What is an "O" in history? For that matter, what is a "first" in a similar context? Divided by a common language again!

Carol

Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> Simple: Dr. J.A-H.

Carol responds:

We could have him debate Starkey, an intellectual battle of the "men of a certain age," but I think the idea is to have a charming yet knowledgeable spokesman young enough to charm the under-thirty set, which is why I jokingly suggested a Ricardian-educated Orlando Bloom. I admire J A-H tremendously, but he doesn't have the charisma that some of us are looking for.

Carol

I imagine Stephen is referring to a GCE "O" level, the exam that used to be taken around the age of 16 in England & Wales. I have one of those, and also an GCE "A" level in history, taken around the age of 18. "O" stood for Ordinary and "A" for Advanced, while GCE stood for "General Certificate of Education" if my memory serves me. Your "O" level results were used to apply to University, your "A" level results would (hopefully) get you in.

I would, however, dispute that it is impossible to do proper research and be a genuine historian without a Masters degree or a PHD.

Richard G

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > A historian is someone who does proper research and has at least an MA, possibly a PHD in the subject. Weir fits neither description and is a "historical writer".
> > My degree is in mathematics and I have an 'O' in history. I do not claim to be a historian, despite the development, and nor should she.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> What is an "O" in history? For that matter, what is a "first" in a similar context? Divided by a common language again!
>
> Carol
>

And a "first" is the level of degree obtained.  There are various levels, a first is the highest and a double first (a 1.1) means you are a real swot.  When I was a university in the late 1970s most people seemed to get a 2.1 or a 2.2.   
 


________________________________
From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 19:50
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard

 
I imagine Stephen is referring to a GCE "O" level, the exam that used to be taken around the age of 16 in England & Wales. I have one of those, and also an GCE "A" level in history, taken around the age of 18. "O" stood for Ordinary and "A" for Advanced, while GCE stood for "General Certificate of Education" if my memory serves me. Your "O" level results were used to apply to University, your "A" level results would (hopefully) get you in.

I would, however, dispute that it is impossible to do proper research and be a genuine historian without a Masters degree or a PHD.

Richard G

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > A historian is someone who does proper research and has at least an MA, possibly a PHD in the subject. Weir fits neither description and is a "historical writer".
> > My degree is in mathematics and I have an 'O' in history. I do not claim to be a historian, despite the development, and nor should she.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> What is an "O" in history? For that matter, what is a "first" in a similar context? Divided by a common language again!
>
> Carol
>

I gather that this compliment was made by her mother !



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard





So is she "one of the greatest" historians or a "populist" historian (obvIously I do really know the answer) because you can't be both.

I'm not logged onto that site but please feel free to mention that she doesn't even have a degree in History. (She trained as a teacher,as did I and apparently that was the time she studied history properly. she says this herself.)

I am astounded that the ignorance of people continues to astound me.

Liz


From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@... <mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard



The people on the Wall St. Journal page seemed to be Alison Weir fans. It generally starts the same way:

"Alison Weir, one of the greatest historians in the English language, says that Richard the Third was a creep."

Me: "She's not a scholar. She doesn't even use footnotes!"

Them: "Oh, well. She's a popular historian - you can't expect her to use footnotes. But her conclusions about Richard the Third are VERY COMPELLING!"

Me: "If you want to read someone who is scholarly but not a fan of Richard, why not try Charles Ross?"

Them: "Who?"

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
>
> If it's any comfort, Jonathan, I think that there are "professional commenters" who go from site to site peddling their nonsense all over the place. They are not necessarily the readers of the newspaper whose articles they are commenting on.
>
> And, of course, there are always the ever present trolls...
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > If the subject isn't close to your heart, it can sometimes be amusing. But if it is, it's infuriating. I sometimes check the website of the newspaper I read. It's a quality broadsheet and so, you'd think, it's readers wouldn't be the empty-headed, knee-jerk 'Daily Mail' type. But when I read comments on subjects as diverse as the budget deficit, immigration or gay marriage, I often come away feeling ashamed to be part of the readership.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

"Richard" wrote:
>
> I imagine Stephen is referring to a GCE "O" level, the exam that used to be taken around the age of 16 in England & Wales. I have one of those, and also an GCE "A" level in history, taken around the age of 18. "O" stood for Ordinary and "A" for Advanced, while GCE stood for "General Certificate of Education" if my memory serves me. Your "O" level results were used to apply to University, your "A" level results would (hopefully) get you in.

Carol responds:

Thanks for the explanation. I'm afraid it's all a bit too much like OWLs and NEWTs (Harry Potter reference) to be readily comprehensible to my American brain. And what is a "first"?

Carol

My point was that Alison Weir fans make no sense whatsoever! They claim she's a great historian and/or a popular writer in the same breath. And they say Ricardians are loopy! Maire.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> So is she "one of the greatest" historians or a "populist" historian (obvIously I do really know the answer) because you can't be both. 
>  
> I'm not logged onto that site but please feel free to mention that she doesn't even have a degree in  History.  (She trained as a teacher,as did I and apparently that was the time she studied history properly.  she says this herself.)
>  
> I am astounded that the ignorance of people continues to astound me.
>  
> Liz
>  
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:40
> Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
>
>  
>
>
> The people on the Wall St. Journal page seemed to be Alison Weir fans. It generally starts the same way:
>
> "Alison Weir, one of the greatest historians in the English language, says that Richard the Third was a creep."
>
> Me: "She's not a scholar. She doesn't even use footnotes!"
>
> Them: "Oh, well. She's a popular historian - you can't expect her to use footnotes. But her conclusions about Richard the Third are VERY COMPELLING!"
>
> Me: "If you want to read someone who is scholarly but not a fan of Richard, why not try Charles Ross?"
>
> Them: "Who?"
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
> >
> > If it's any comfort, Jonathan, I think that there are "professional commenters" who go from site to site peddling their nonsense all over the place. They are not necessarily the readers of the newspaper whose articles they are commenting on.
> >
> > And, of course, there are always the ever present trolls...
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > If the subject isn't close to your heart, it can sometimes be amusing.  But if it is, it's infuriating.  I sometimes check the website of the newspaper I read.  It's  a quality broadsheet and so, you'd think, it's readers wouldn't be the empty-headed, knee-jerk 'Daily Mail' type.  But when I read comments on subjects as diverse as the budget deficit, immigration or gay marriage, I often come away feeling ashamed to be part of the readership.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ms Weir is not an historian, any more than I am. She is a novelist and writer of popular history - there is nothing wrong with that, it is not something to be ashamed about, and I don't understand the need to describe herself as something she aint. Unless I am very much mistaken her academic qualifications do not relate to history, certainly not to medieval history.

To draw a parallel, I know a fair bit about steam locomotives and sometimes write about them, but it doesn't make me a mechanical engineer. If I was to go around calling myself a mechanical engineer everyone would think me an ass - and they would be right.

Brian W.

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> My point was that Alison Weir fans make no sense whatsoever! They claim she's a great historian and/or a popular writer in the same breath. And they say Ricardians are loopy! Maire.
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > So is she "one of the greatest" historians or a "populist" historian (obvIously I do really know the answer) because you can't be both. 
> >  
> > I'm not logged onto that site but please feel free to mention that she doesn't even have a degree in  History.  (She trained as a teacher,as did I and apparently that was the time she studied history properly.  she says this herself.)
> >  
> > I am astounded that the ignorance of people continues to astound me.
> >  
> > Liz
> >  
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:40
> > Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > The people on the Wall St. Journal page seemed to be Alison Weir fans. It generally starts the same way:
> >
> > "Alison Weir, one of the greatest historians in the English language, says that Richard the Third was a creep."
> >
> > Me: "She's not a scholar. She doesn't even use footnotes!"
> >
> > Them: "Oh, well. She's a popular historian - you can't expect her to use footnotes. But her conclusions about Richard the Third are VERY COMPELLING!"
> >
> > Me: "If you want to read someone who is scholarly but not a fan of Richard, why not try Charles Ross?"
> >
> > Them: "Who?"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
> > >
> > > If it's any comfort, Jonathan, I think that there are "professional commenters" who go from site to site peddling their nonsense all over the place. They are not necessarily the readers of the newspaper whose articles they are commenting on.
> > >
> > > And, of course, there are always the ever present trolls...
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If the subject isn't close to your heart, it can sometimes be amusing.  But if it is, it's infuriating.  I sometimes check the website of the newspaper I read.  It's  a quality broadsheet and so, you'd think, it's readers wouldn't be the empty-headed, knee-jerk 'Daily Mail' type.  But when I read comments on subjects as diverse as the budget deficit, immigration or gay marriage, I often come away feeling ashamed to be part of the readership.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Carol,
A first is the highest 'mark' you can get for a BA degree, it stands for a 'first class'. After that you get a 2:1, then a 2:2 and very rarely a 3.
Jacq

To:
From: justcarol67@...
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:05:15 +0000
Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard


























"Richard" wrote:

>

> I imagine Stephen is referring to a GCE "O" level, the exam that used to be taken around the age of 16 in England & Wales. I have one of those, and also an GCE "A" level in history, taken around the age of 18. "O" stood for Ordinary and "A" for Advanced, while GCE stood for "General Certificate of Education" if my memory serves me. Your "O" level results were used to apply to University, your "A" level results would (hopefully) get you in.



Carol responds:



Thanks for the explanation. I'm afraid it's all a bit too much like OWLs and NEWTs (Harry Potter reference) to be readily comprehensible to my American brain. And what is a "first"?



Carol

Jacqueline Harvey wrote:

> A first is the highest 'mark' you can get for a BA degree, it stands for a 'first class'. After that you get a 2:1, then a 2:2 and very rarely a 3.

Carol responds:

Thanks. I suppose it compares roughly to our (the U.S.'s) summa cum laude, magna cum laude, cum laude, and a plain degree with no laude (honors) attached, which is what the majority of people with a bachelors degree (either BA or BS) receive.

Almost certainly, we retained the Latin terminology used by the British at the time the colonies were settled (just as we've retained the English system of measurement while Britain has gone metric). Interesting and ironic that the Colonies would preserve their British heritage. I for one am glad of it. Though I'm also glad that George Washington didn't become King George V!

Carol

Alison Weir's style of writing is quite readable. I only know this because my daughter had her book on Eleanor of Aquitane and I started to read it and then it ocurred to me that as her books on the WOTR are complete rubbish, you only have to read the first page and she comes out with some unresearched nonsense, what guarantee did I have that he book on Eleanor wasn't the same. I didn't know very much about Eleanor then but I have now read Sharon Penman's excellent series on Henry and Eleanor and their family so I'm sure that I could pick a few holes in Weir's Eleanor. I know Sharon's books are fiction but they are really well researched and her authors notes always tell you if she has taken a liberty. Weir is definitely not one of the greatest of historians. To be a great historian you have to do lots of research and find evidence to back up what you write, she doesn't do either.

Mary

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> So is she "one of the greatest" historians or a "populist" historian (obvIously I do really know the answer) because you can't be both. 
>  
> I'm not logged onto that site but please feel free to mention that she doesn't even have a degree in  History.  (She trained as a teacher,as did I and apparently that was the time she studied history properly.  she says this herself.)
>  
> I am astounded that the ignorance of people continues to astound me.
>  
> Liz
>  
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:40
> Subject: Re: A historian defends Richard
>
>  
>
>
> The people on the Wall St. Journal page seemed to be Alison Weir fans. It generally starts the same way:
>
> "Alison Weir, one of the greatest historians in the English language, says that Richard the Third was a creep."
>
> Me: "She's not a scholar. She doesn't even use footnotes!"
>
> Them: "Oh, well. She's a popular historian - you can't expect her to use footnotes. But her conclusions about Richard the Third are VERY COMPELLING!"
>
> Me: "If you want to read someone who is scholarly but not a fan of Richard, why not try Charles Ross?"
>
> Them: "Who?"
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "highland_katherine" wrote:
> >
> > If it's any comfort, Jonathan, I think that there are "professional commenters" who go from site to site peddling their nonsense all over the place. They are not necessarily the readers of the newspaper whose articles they are commenting on.
> >
> > And, of course, there are always the ever present trolls...
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > If the subject isn't close to your heart, it can sometimes be amusing.  But if it is, it's infuriating.  I sometimes check the website of the newspaper I read.  It's  a quality broadsheet and so, you'd think, it's readers wouldn't be the empty-headed, knee-jerk 'Daily Mail' type.  But when I read comments on subjects as diverse as the budget deficit, immigration or gay marriage, I often come away feeling ashamed to be part of the readership.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>