Bloody Tales

Just dropping in to flag up the National Geographic Channels' 'Bloody
Tales" programme which on Monday next is doing the Princes in the Tower.
Let's hope, having seen the first programme in the series debunking
three so called things we *know* from history, that the programme makers
might have something fairer to Richard to say.
We shall have to wait and see.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hope so too!

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:44 PM
Subject: Bloody Tales


 
Just dropping in to flag up the National Geographic Channels' 'Bloody
Tales" programme which on Monday next is doing the Princes in the Tower.
Let's hope, having seen the first programme in the series debunking
three so called things we *know* from history, that the programme makers
might have something fairer to Richard to say.
We shall have to wait and see.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

let us know paul...i for one cannot get ngc...eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Just dropping in to flag up the National Geographic Channels' 'Bloody
> Tales" programme which on Monday next is doing the Princes in the Tower.
> Let's hope, having seen the first programme in the series debunking
> three so called things we *know* from history, that the programme makers
> might have something fairer to Richard to say.
> We shall have to wait and see.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

judy how lovely to see you...or should i say read you..eileem

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hope so too!
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:44 PM
> Subject: Bloody Tales
>
>
>  
> Just dropping in to flag up the National Geographic Channels' 'Bloody
> Tales" programme which on Monday next is doing the Princes in the Tower.
> Let's hope, having seen the first programme in the series debunking
> three so called things we *know* from history, that the programme makers
> might have something fairer to Richard to say.
> We shall have to wait and see.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Fingers crossed......we can live in hope!

On Mar 26, 2013, at 2:44 PM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



Just dropping in to flag up the National Geographic Channels' 'Bloody
Tales" programme which on Monday next is doing the Princes in the Tower.
Let's hope, having seen the first programme in the series debunking
three so called things we *know* from history, that the programme makers
might have something fairer to Richard to say.
We shall have to wait and see.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I'll say!  It's been far too long  - welcome back.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 19:58
Subject: Re: Bloody Tales

 
judy how lovely to see you...or should i say read you..eileem

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hope so too!
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:44 PM
> Subject: Bloody Tales
>
>
>  
> Just dropping in to flag up the National Geographic Channels' 'Bloody
> Tales" programme which on Monday next is doing the Princes in the Tower.
> Let's hope, having seen the first programme in the series debunking
> three so called things we *know* from history, that the programme makers
> might have something fairer to Richard to say.
> We shall have to wait and see.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Hoping to see something new and fairer on the mystery of the princes in
the Tower, and the first programme in the series debunked a couple of
favourite myths, I waited anxiously see what the second programme in
this series on National Geographic channel would come up with.
Was I disappointed? Guess what? Of course I was.
Starting with the usual story of the poor boys murdered in the Tower by
their uncle Richard.
But is it true? asked the presenter.
Long considered the arch villain Richard's reputation has been shaped by
Shakespeare. Phil Stone appeared in Shaftesbury Avenue outside a
production of the play and did a brief defence of the hunchback myth and
the princes stories. 'Just because they disappeared doesn't mean they're
dead. And if they're dead doesn't mean Richard killed them.
There was a brief run round the Rous Roll mentioning Anne's "ill-starred
husband" then the chronicle that stated the sons of King Edward were put
to death in the Tower on vise of the Duke of Buckingham. "But this is
based on hearsay." No mention of the fact that most of the stories are
based on rumour. Only that "other gossip from the time blamed Richard".
But no sources of these 'from the time' rumours.
Then we were off to Bosworth where David Baldwin delivered his story of
Richard visiting the king on the eve of battle. Followed by the Richard
of Eastwell story.
We then got the 'Edward V was being visited in the Tower by a doctor so
may have been ill' tale.
At The Tower Sally Dixon-Smith, the Tower curator, was wheeled out and
obviously defended the old stories to keep the tourists coming. Richard
"had the character to kill them and the motive" she stated. The name of
the place the boys were kept was changed a hundred years later because
of this ghastly murder to the Bloody Tower. Nobody mentioned the awful
things that happened there under the Tudors that actually caused the
name change. No it was because of the princes! Oh and the Tower was to
the presenter "an impregnable fortress". Why I wonder no mention of the
hundreds of people who came and went and lived there at the time? If
Richard was, as she claimed hands on in charge of the place, and would
have known about the fate of his nephews, what about them?
They mentioned the bones in the Abbey, two children found at the Tower
and buried as the princes, and how modern science could prove if they
were indeed the princes, and how they died.
Conclusion? "We may never know what happened to the boys, and just
because Richard is the victim of Shakespeare's character assassination
doesn't make him innocent."
But he didn't "execute all the young King Edward's councillors" as the
film kept claiming.
If innocent of one thing, all other accusations become for me dubious at
least.
Pity tv programmes don't have the same ethic.
Paul



--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Can we write to Historic Royal Palaces and suggest that they actually employ a curator who knows when the Bloody Tower was so named and why?



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 20:23
Subject: Bloody Tales

 
Hoping to see something new and fairer on the mystery of the princes in
the Tower, and the first programme in the series debunked a couple of
favourite myths, I waited anxiously see what the second programme in
this series on National Geographic channel would come up with.
Was I disappointed? Guess what? Of course I was.
Starting with the usual story of the poor boys murdered in the Tower by
their uncle Richard.
But is it true? asked the presenter.
Long considered the arch villain Richard's reputation has been shaped by
Shakespeare. Phil Stone appeared in Shaftesbury Avenue outside a
production of the play and did a brief defence of the hunchback myth and
the princes stories. 'Just because they disappeared doesn't mean they're
dead. And if they're dead doesn't mean Richard killed them.
There was a brief run round the Rous Roll mentioning Anne's "ill-starred
husband" then the chronicle that stated the sons of King Edward were put
to death in the Tower on vise of the Duke of Buckingham. "But this is
based on hearsay." No mention of the fact that most of the stories are
based on rumour. Only that "other gossip from the time blamed Richard".
But no sources of these 'from the time' rumours.
Then we were off to Bosworth where David Baldwin delivered his story of
Richard visiting the king on the eve of battle. Followed by the Richard
of Eastwell story.
We then got the 'Edward V was being visited in the Tower by a doctor so
may have been ill' tale.
At The Tower Sally Dixon-Smith, the Tower curator, was wheeled out and
obviously defended the old stories to keep the tourists coming. Richard
"had the character to kill them and the motive" she stated. The name of
the place the boys were kept was changed a hundred years later because
of this ghastly murder to the Bloody Tower. Nobody mentioned the awful
things that happened there under the Tudors that actually caused the
name change. No it was because of the princes! Oh and the Tower was to
the presenter "an impregnable fortress". Why I wonder no mention of the
hundreds of people who came and went and lived there at the time? If
Richard was, as she claimed hands on in charge of the place, and would
have known about the fate of his nephews, what about them?
They mentioned the bones in the Abbey, two children found at the Tower
and buried as the princes, and how modern science could prove if they
were indeed the princes, and how they died.
Conclusion? "We may never know what happened to the boys, and just
because Richard is the victim of Shakespeare's character assassination
doesn't make him innocent."
But he didn't "execute all the young King Edward's councillors" as the
film kept claiming.
If innocent of one thing, all other accusations become for me dubious at
least.
Pity tv programmes don't have the same ethic.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Ah, Paul. Can't say I'm surprised. Just, like you, disappointed. As with the song, "And the beat goes on."

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:23 PM
Subject: Bloody Tales


 
Hoping to see something new and fairer on the mystery of the princes in
the Tower, and the first programme in the series debunked a couple of
favourite myths, I waited anxiously see what the second programme in
this series on National Geographic channel would come up with.
Was I disappointed? Guess what? Of course I was.
Starting with the usual story of the poor boys murdered in the Tower by
their uncle Richard.
But is it true? asked the presenter.
Long considered the arch villain Richard's reputation has been shaped by
Shakespeare. Phil Stone appeared in Shaftesbury Avenue outside a
production of the play and did a brief defence of the hunchback myth and
the princes stories. 'Just because they disappeared doesn't mean they're
dead. And if they're dead doesn't mean Richard killed them.
There was a brief run round the Rous Roll mentioning Anne's "ill-starred
husband" then the chronicle that stated the sons of King Edward were put
to death in the Tower on vise of the Duke of Buckingham. "But this is
based on hearsay." No mention of the fact that most of the stories are
based on rumour. Only that "other gossip from the time blamed Richard".
But no sources of these 'from the time' rumours.
Then we were off to Bosworth where David Baldwin delivered his story of
Richard visiting the king on the eve of battle. Followed by the Richard
of Eastwell story.
We then got the 'Edward V was being visited in the Tower by a doctor so
may have been ill' tale.
At The Tower Sally Dixon-Smith, the Tower curator, was wheeled out and
obviously defended the old stories to keep the tourists coming. Richard
"had the character to kill them and the motive" she stated. The name of
the place the boys were kept was changed a hundred years later because
of this ghastly murder to the Bloody Tower. Nobody mentioned the awful
things that happened there under the Tudors that actually caused the
name change. No it was because of the princes! Oh and the Tower was to
the presenter "an impregnable fortress". Why I wonder no mention of the
hundreds of people who came and went and lived there at the time? If
Richard was, as she claimed hands on in charge of the place, and would
have known about the fate of his nephews, what about them?
They mentioned the bones in the Abbey, two children found at the Tower
and buried as the princes, and how modern science could prove if they
were indeed the princes, and how they died.
Conclusion? "We may never know what happened to the boys, and just
because Richard is the victim of Shakespeare's character assassination
doesn't make him innocent."
But he didn't "execute all the young King Edward's councillors" as the
film kept claiming.
If innocent of one thing, all other accusations become for me dubious at
least.
Pity tv programmes don't have the same ethic.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Great to see you back in earnest.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:23 PM
Subject: Bloody Tales



Hoping to see something new and fairer on the mystery of the princes in
the Tower, and the first programme in the series debunked a couple of
favourite myths, I waited anxiously see what the second programme in
this series on National Geographic channel would come up with.
Was I disappointed? Guess what? Of course I was.
Starting with the usual story of the poor boys murdered in the Tower by
their uncle Richard.
But is it true? asked the presenter.
Long considered the arch villain Richard's reputation has been shaped by
Shakespeare. Phil Stone appeared in Shaftesbury Avenue outside a
production of the play and did a brief defence of the hunchback myth and
the princes stories. 'Just because they disappeared doesn't mean they're
dead. And if they're dead doesn't mean Richard killed them.
There was a brief run round the Rous Roll mentioning Anne's "ill-starred
husband" then the chronicle that stated the sons of King Edward were put
to death in the Tower on vise of the Duke of Buckingham. "But this is
based on hearsay." No mention of the fact that most of the stories are
based on rumour. Only that "other gossip from the time blamed Richard".
But no sources of these 'from the time' rumours.
Then we were off to Bosworth where David Baldwin delivered his story of
Richard visiting the king on the eve of battle. Followed by the Richard
of Eastwell story.
We then got the 'Edward V was being visited in the Tower by a doctor so
may have been ill' tale.
At The Tower Sally Dixon-Smith, the Tower curator, was wheeled out and
obviously defended the old stories to keep the tourists coming. Richard
"had the character to kill them and the motive" she stated. The name of
the place the boys were kept was changed a hundred years later because
of this ghastly murder to the Bloody Tower. Nobody mentioned the awful
things that happened there under the Tudors that actually caused the
name change. No it was because of the princes! Oh and the Tower was to
the presenter "an impregnable fortress". Why I wonder no mention of the
hundreds of people who came and went and lived there at the time? If
Richard was, as she claimed hands on in charge of the place, and would
have known about the fate of his nephews, what about them?
They mentioned the bones in the Abbey, two children found at the Tower
and buried as the princes, and how modern science could prove if they
were indeed the princes, and how they died.
Conclusion? "We may never know what happened to the boys, and just
because Richard is the victim of Shakespeare's character assassination
doesn't make him innocent."
But he didn't "execute all the young King Edward's councillors" as the
film kept claiming.
If innocent of one thing, all other accusations become for me dubious at
least.
Pity tv programmes don't have the same ethic.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Dr. Lucy Worsley, whose latest series starts next Monday, is well-informed by their standards.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Bloody Tales



Can we write to Historic Royal Palaces and suggest that they actually employ a curator who knows when the Bloody Tower was so named and why?

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 20:23
Subject: Bloody Tales


Hoping to see something new and fairer on the mystery of the princes in
the Tower, and the first programme in the series debunked a couple of
favourite myths, I waited anxiously see what the second programme in
this series on National Geographic channel would come up with.
Was I disappointed? Guess what? Of course I was.
Starting with the usual story of the poor boys murdered in the Tower by
their uncle Richard.
But is it true? asked the presenter.
Long considered the arch villain Richard's reputation has been shaped by
Shakespeare. Phil Stone appeared in Shaftesbury Avenue outside a
production of the play and did a brief defence of the hunchback myth and
the princes stories. 'Just because they disappeared doesn't mean they're
dead. And if they're dead doesn't mean Richard killed them.
There was a brief run round the Rous Roll mentioning Anne's "ill-starred
husband" then the chronicle that stated the sons of King Edward were put
to death in the Tower on vise of the Duke of Buckingham. "But this is
based on hearsay." No mention of the fact that most of the stories are
based on rumour. Only that "other gossip from the time blamed Richard".
But no sources of these 'from the time' rumours.
Then we were off to Bosworth where David Baldwin delivered his story of
Richard visiting the king on the eve of battle. Followed by the Richard
of Eastwell story.
We then got the 'Edward V was being visited in the Tower by a doctor so
may have been ill' tale.
At The Tower Sally Dixon-Smith, the Tower curator, was wheeled out and
obviously defended the old stories to keep the tourists coming. Richard
"had the character to kill them and the motive" she stated. The name of
the place the boys were kept was changed a hundred years later because
of this ghastly murder to the Bloody Tower. Nobody mentioned the awful
things that happened there under the Tudors that actually caused the
name change. No it was because of the princes! Oh and the Tower was to
the presenter "an impregnable fortress". Why I wonder no mention of the
hundreds of people who came and went and lived there at the time? If
Richard was, as she claimed hands on in charge of the place, and would
have known about the fate of his nephews, what about them?
They mentioned the bones in the Abbey, two children found at the Tower
and buried as the princes, and how modern science could prove if they
were indeed the princes, and how they died.
Conclusion? "We may never know what happened to the boys, and just
because Richard is the victim of Shakespeare's character assassination
doesn't make him innocent."
But he didn't "execute all the young King Edward's councillors" as the
film kept claiming.
If innocent of one thing, all other accusations become for me dubious at
least.
Pity tv programmes don't have the same ethic.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

At least she's got a bit of enthusiasm and a sense of humour. Her programme on inside the body of fat Henry was very good.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 21:16
Subject: Re: Bloody Tales

 

Dr. Lucy Worsley, whose latest series starts next Monday, is well-informed by their standards.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Bloody Tales

Can we write to Historic Royal Palaces and suggest that they actually employ a curator who knows when the Bloody Tower was so named and why?

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 20:23
Subject: Bloody Tales

Hoping to see something new and fairer on the mystery of the princes in
the Tower, and the first programme in the series debunked a couple of
favourite myths, I waited anxiously see what the second programme in
this series on National Geographic channel would come up with.
Was I disappointed? Guess what? Of course I was.
Starting with the usual story of the poor boys murdered in the Tower by
their uncle Richard.
But is it true? asked the presenter.
Long considered the arch villain Richard's reputation has been shaped by
Shakespeare. Phil Stone appeared in Shaftesbury Avenue outside a
production of the play and did a brief defence of the hunchback myth and
the princes stories. 'Just because they disappeared doesn't mean they're
dead. And if they're dead doesn't mean Richard killed them.
There was a brief run round the Rous Roll mentioning Anne's "ill-starred
husband" then the chronicle that stated the sons of King Edward were put
to death in the Tower on vise of the Duke of Buckingham. "But this is
based on hearsay." No mention of the fact that most of the stories are
based on rumour. Only that "other gossip from the time blamed Richard".
But no sources of these 'from the time' rumours.
Then we were off to Bosworth where David Baldwin delivered his story of
Richard visiting the king on the eve of battle. Followed by the Richard
of Eastwell story.
We then got the 'Edward V was being visited in the Tower by a doctor so
may have been ill' tale.
At The Tower Sally Dixon-Smith, the Tower curator, was wheeled out and
obviously defended the old stories to keep the tourists coming. Richard
"had the character to kill them and the motive" she stated. The name of
the place the boys were kept was changed a hundred years later because
of this ghastly murder to the Bloody Tower. Nobody mentioned the awful
things that happened there under the Tudors that actually caused the
name change. No it was because of the princes! Oh and the Tower was to
the presenter "an impregnable fortress". Why I wonder no mention of the
hundreds of people who came and went and lived there at the time? If
Richard was, as she claimed hands on in charge of the place, and would
have known about the fate of his nephews, what about them?
They mentioned the bones in the Abbey, two children found at the Tower
and buried as the princes, and how modern science could prove if they
were indeed the princes, and how they died.
Conclusion? "We may never know what happened to the boys, and just
because Richard is the victim of Shakespeare's character assassination
doesn't make him innocent."
But he didn't "execute all the young King Edward's councillors" as the
film kept claiming.
If innocent of one thing, all other accusations become for me dubious at
least.
Pity tv programmes don't have the same ethic.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

She also wrote a reasonable piece on Richard for 'The Guardian' over the weekend, though it was more about the devotion he attracts than his historical character.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Lucy Worsley, I mean.  Not sure why my phone detached the original message that I was replying to.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: Richard III Society Forum <>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 9:02
Subject: Re: Bloody Tales


 
She also wrote a reasonable piece on Richard for 'The Guardian' over the weekend, though it was more about the devotion he attracts than his historical character.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

She's by training an art historian, but seems to have branched out well into other areas. I suppose she has the opportunity given her job.



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 10:01
Subject: Re: Bloody Tales

 

Lucy Worsley, I mean.  Not sure why my phone detached the original message that I was replying to.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: Richard III Society Forum <>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 9:02
Subject: Re: Bloody Tales


 
She also wrote a reasonable piece on Richard for 'The Guardian' over the weekend, though it was more about the devotion he attracts than his historical character.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

And what EVIDENCE she has to back up her comments.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Can we write to Historic Royal Palaces and suggest that they actually employ a curator who knows when the Bloody Tower was so named and why?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 20:23
> Subject: Bloody Tales
>
>  
> Hoping to see something new and fairer on the mystery of the princes in
> the Tower, and the first programme in the series debunked a couple of
> favourite myths, I waited anxiously see what the second programme in
> this series on National Geographic channel would come up with.
> Was I disappointed? Guess what? Of course I was.
> Starting with the usual story of the poor boys murdered in the Tower by
> their uncle Richard.
> But is it true? asked the presenter.
> Long considered the arch villain Richard's reputation has been shaped by
> Shakespeare. Phil Stone appeared in Shaftesbury Avenue outside a
> production of the play and did a brief defence of the hunchback myth and
> the princes stories. 'Just because they disappeared doesn't mean they're
> dead. And if they're dead doesn't mean Richard killed them.
> There was a brief run round the Rous Roll mentioning Anne's "ill-starred
> husband" then the chronicle that stated the sons of King Edward were put
> to death in the Tower on vise of the Duke of Buckingham. "But this is
> based on hearsay." No mention of the fact that most of the stories are
> based on rumour. Only that "other gossip from the time blamed Richard".
> But no sources of these 'from the time' rumours.
> Then we were off to Bosworth where David Baldwin delivered his story of
> Richard visiting the king on the eve of battle. Followed by the Richard
> of Eastwell story.
> We then got the 'Edward V was being visited in the Tower by a doctor so
> may have been ill' tale.
> At The Tower Sally Dixon-Smith, the Tower curator, was wheeled out and
> obviously defended the old stories to keep the tourists coming. Richard
> "had the character to kill them and the motive" she stated. The name of
> the place the boys were kept was changed a hundred years later because
> of this ghastly murder to the Bloody Tower. Nobody mentioned the awful
> things that happened there under the Tudors that actually caused the
> name change. No it was because of the princes! Oh and the Tower was to
> the presenter "an impregnable fortress". Why I wonder no mention of the
> hundreds of people who came and went and lived there at the time? If
> Richard was, as she claimed hands on in charge of the place, and would
> have known about the fate of his nephews, what about them?
> They mentioned the bones in the Abbey, two children found at the Tower
> and buried as the princes, and how modern science could prove if they
> were indeed the princes, and how they died.
> Conclusion? "We may never know what happened to the boys, and just
> because Richard is the victim of Shakespeare's character assassination
> doesn't make him innocent."
> But he didn't "execute all the young King Edward's councillors" as the
> film kept claiming.
> If innocent of one thing, all other accusations become for me dubious at
> least.
> Pity tv programmes don't have the same ethic.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>