Richard III Brief

New for you on Kindle
the blurb states..

"Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.

It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
you decide."

Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

What is the book?  Bloody cheek.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
Subject: Richard III Brief

 
New for you on Kindle
the blurb states..

"Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.

It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
you decide."

Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family, and several good friends. Good grief!!!
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 
What is the book?  Bloody cheek.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
Subject: Richard III Brief

 
New for you on Kindle
the blurb states..

"Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.

It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
you decide."

Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.

Maria
ejbronte@...


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> and several good friends. Good grief!!!
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>
>
> What is the book? Bloody cheek.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> Subject: Richard III Brief
>
>
> New for you on Kindle
> the blurb states..
>
> "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
>
> It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> you decide."
>
> Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?

I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?

(I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > Subject: Richard III Brief
> >
> >
> > New for you on Kindle
> > the blurb states..
> >
> > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> >
> > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > you decide."
> >
> > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Forgot to add, if this was an age where a Frenchman who met H7 only once could remember he had a cast in one eye, I find it amazing that no-one made any mention of this gross deformity of Richard's, which according to Landsdale and Boon, made him so pious, insecure and unfriendly and ever ready to atone for the burden God had placed on him (or words to that effect). We should just be grateful that they think him so insecure and self-deprecating that he could never have been a killer.


--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>
> And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?
>
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?
>
> (I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "
> > > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > > Subject: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > > New for you on Kindle
> > > the blurb states..
> > >
> > > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> > >
> > > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > > you decide."
> > >
> > > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I actually thought the Lansdale and Boon article was interesting (you can't say more than that at a remove of over 500 years) and very, very favourable to Richard, both as a person and a monarch.  Re the section headed "Richard's Deformity", they were careful to stress that it's not a term that would be used today and that they had specific reasons for choosing it because of how the scoliosis could have impacted on his self-image.  The one problem with any discussion of this kind at the moment, is that no one with the appropriate medical background has yet clarified precisely how much he would have been affected.  So, on the one hand, you get Lansdale and Boon saying it would have been noticeable; on the other, you get Bob Woosnam-Savage saying it wouldn't have been.  Not that it really matters whether one shoulder might have been one inch or two inches higher than the other, or whether there was no visible disparity.  Certainly, for the purposes of
Lansdale and Boon, it would have been apparent to Richard *himself*.  I tend to think it's a bit of a red-herring, anyway, and getting too fussed about the precise geometry of a relatively common condition means that we end up challenging traditionalists on their ground rather than ours.  If they think a sore back is indicative of anything other than a sore back...  Well, they're still living in the 15th Century.

I also have no problem with the Ian Mortimer letter.  I'm assuming he's a member of the Society, so he has every right to be published.  The substance of his argument was unexceptional - i.e. that bones can tell us nothing about character or events - and that hyperbole (such as some of the language used about the facial reconstruction - "warm face", "hint of a smile", "not the face of a tyrant") is inimical to genuine historical enquiry.  I *do* have a problem with some of the language employed.  I don't have a copy of the Bulletin to hand, but I think he used the term "crimes", albeit in the context of a continuing debate rather than as an accusation.  Well, if you want to talk of "crimes" in connection with Richard, you also have to use that word when discussing pretty much every other medieval monarch - not to mention a fair few leaders of modern democracies!  But, for all that, the likes of Ian Mortimer are people we should engage with, not
censor, and the idea that the Society should not publish a mildly sceptical letter from someone of his standing would be hugely damaging to its credibility.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:21
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?

I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?

(I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > Subject: Richard III Brief
> >
> >
> > New for you on Kindle
> > the blurb states..
> >
> > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> >
> > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > you decide."
> >
> > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. As I said to another poster, I have no problem with Richard having scoiliosis, in fact it wouldn't bother me if he was four foot with a wooden leg, but what I am interested in is truth. And we have no evidence whatsoever other than from Rous who said he had one shoulder higher than the other, that there was anything visibly wrong with Richard's appearance. His contemporary Jeanne de France had visible scoliosis, was divorced by Louis XII, and beatified because she went into a convent to seek atonement for her 'deformity'. The trouble is that once people like Langdale and Boon use the term 'deformity' which they themselves admit is not PC then others who glance at their article, including the media, pick up such things and run with them. And hidden somewhere in that article, or another, I can't remember which is the admission that further work should be done on the bones. Jo Appleby's 'hunchback' has cast a long
shadow over this. And frankly, if the term 'deformity' is not PC now why is it PC to use it in respect of someone from another century - it just fuels the Shakespeare/More arguments?
 
I'm a great admirer of Ian Mortimer, in fact it's a pity he doesn't write on Richard, he's probably the best historian of this period that we have. It's his statement that the Society's purpose is 're-assessment of the material, not the rehabilitation of the man' that worries me. I know historians should maintain, wherever possible, a lack of bias and that's what he's getting at, but would the Society really be there if we thought we were seeking to prove a villain? And I have to say I haven't seen it rushing to Richard's defence when all and sundry continue to make headlines about finding the murderous hunchback. Indeed I haven't seen much gushing about what a marvellous man he was either apart from a couple of adverts in History magazine. As for Ian being a member, I very much doubt it, but I wish he were.  
 
Hope this clarifies things for you.  H


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief

 

I actually thought the Lansdale and Boon article was interesting (you can't say more than that at a remove of over 500 years) and very, very favourable to Richard, both as a person and a monarch.  Re the section headed "Richard's Deformity", they were careful to stress that it's not a term that would be used today and that they had specific reasons for choosing it because of how the scoliosis could have impacted on his self-image.  The one problem with any discussion of this kind at the moment, is that no one with the appropriate medical background has yet clarified precisely how much he would have been affected.  So, on the one hand, you get Lansdale and Boon saying it would have been noticeable; on the other, you get Bob Woosnam-Savage saying it wouldn't have been.  Not that it really matters whether one shoulder might have been one inch or two inches higher than the other, or whether there was no visible disparity.  Certainly, for the purposes of
Lansdale and Boon, it would have been apparent to Richard *himself*.  I tend to think it's a bit of a red-herring, anyway, and getting too fussed about the precise geometry of a relatively common condition means that we end up challenging traditionalists on their ground rather than ours.  If they think a sore back is indicative of anything other than a sore back...  Well, they're still living in the 15th Century.

I also have no problem with the Ian Mortimer letter.  I'm assuming he's a member of the Society, so he has every right to be published.  The substance of his argument was unexceptional - i.e. that bones can tell us nothing about character or events - and that hyperbole (such as some of the language used about the facial reconstruction - "warm face", "hint of a smile", "not the face of a tyrant") is inimical to genuine historical enquiry.  I *do* have a problem with some of the language employed.  I don't have a copy of the Bulletin to hand, but I think he used the term "crimes", albeit in the context of a continuing debate rather than as an accusation.  Well, if you want to talk of "crimes" in connection with Richard, you also have to use that word when discussing pretty much every other medieval monarch - not to mention a fair few leaders of modern democracies!  But, for all that, the likes of Ian Mortimer are people we should engage with, not
censor, and the idea that the Society should not publish a mildly sceptical letter from someone of his standing would be hugely damaging to its credibility.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:21
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?

I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?

(I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > Subject: Richard III Brief
> >
> >
> > New for you on Kindle
> > the blurb states..
> >
> > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> >
> > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > you decide."
> >
> > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

In regards to various historians' remarks about Richard's "nice" face not being indicative of who he really was, why is it OK for historians who don't respect Richard to put distorted and fake paintings of him on the cover of their books? Sometimes the only standards these historians have are double standards. Maire.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. As I said to another poster, I have no problem with Richard having scoiliosis, in fact it wouldn't bother me if he was four foot with a wooden leg, but what I am interested in is truth. And we have no evidence whatsoever other than from Rous who said he had one shoulder higher than the other, that there was anything visibly wrong with Richard's appearance. His contemporary Jeanne de France had visible scoliosis, was divorced by Louis XII, and beatified because she went into a convent to seek atonement for her 'deformity'. The trouble is that once people like Langdale and Boon use the term 'deformity' which they themselves admit is not PC then others who glance at their article, including the media, pick up such things and run with them. And hidden somewhere in that article, or another, I can't remember which is the admission that further work should be done on the bones. Jo Appleby's 'hunchback' has cast a long
> shadow over this. And frankly, if the term 'deformity' is not PC now why is it PC to use it in respect of someone from another century - it just fuels the Shakespeare/More arguments?
>  
> I'm a great admirer of Ian Mortimer, in fact it's a pity he doesn't write on Richard, he's probably the best historian of this period that we have. It's his statement that the Society's purpose is 're-assessment of the material, not the rehabilitation of the man' that worries me. I know historians should maintain, wherever possible, a lack of bias and that's what he's getting at, but would the Society really be there if we thought we were seeking to prove a villain? And I have to say I haven't seen it rushing to Richard's defence when all and sundry continue to make headlines about finding the murderous hunchback. Indeed I haven't seen much gushing about what a marvellous man he was either apart from a couple of adverts in History magazine. As for Ian being a member, I very much doubt it, but I wish he were.  
>  
> Hope this clarifies things for you.  H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 10:41
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>  
>
> I actually thought the Lansdale and Boon article was interesting (you can't say more than that at a remove of over 500 years) and very, very favourable to Richard, both as a person and a monarch.  Re the section headed "Richard's Deformity", they were careful to stress that it's not a term that would be used today and that they had specific reasons for choosing it because of how the scoliosis could have impacted on his self-image.  The one problem with any discussion of this kind at the moment, is that no one with the appropriate medical background has yet clarified precisely how much he would have been affected.  So, on the one hand, you get Lansdale and Boon saying it would have been noticeable; on the other, you get Bob Woosnam-Savage saying it wouldn't have been.  Not that it really matters whether one shoulder might have been one inch or two inches higher than the other, or whether there was no visible disparity.  Certainly, for the purposes of
> Lansdale and Boon, it would have been apparent to Richard *himself*.  I tend to think it's a bit of a red-herring, anyway, and getting too fussed about the precise geometry of a relatively common condition means that we end up challenging traditionalists on their ground rather than ours.  If they think a sore back is indicative of anything other than a sore back...  Well, they're still living in the 15th Century.
>
> I also have no problem with the Ian Mortimer letter.  I'm assuming he's a member of the Society, so he has every right to be published.  The substance of his argument was unexceptional - i.e. that bones can tell us nothing about character or events - and that hyperbole (such as some of the language used about the facial reconstruction - "warm face", "hint of a smile", "not the face of a tyrant") is inimical to genuine historical enquiry.  I *do* have a problem with some of the language employed.  I don't have a copy of the Bulletin to hand, but I think he used the term "crimes", albeit in the context of a continuing debate rather than as an accusation.  Well, if you want to talk of "crimes" in connection with Richard, you also have to use that word when discussing pretty much every other medieval monarch - not to mention a fair few leaders of modern democracies!  But, for all that, the likes of Ian Mortimer are people we should engage with, not
> censor, and the idea that the Society should not publish a mildly sceptical letter from someone of his standing would be hugely damaging to its credibility.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:21
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>  
>
> And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?
>
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?
>
> (I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "
> > > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > > Subject: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > > New for you on Kindle
> > > the blurb states..
> > >
> > > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> > >
> > > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > > you decide."
> > >
> > > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 13:18
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


"In regards to various
historians' remarks about Richard's "nice" face not being indicative of
who he really was, why is it OK for historians who don't respect Richard to put distorted and fake paintings of him on the cover of their books? Sometimes the only standards these historians have are double
standards. Maire."

But that's the whole point.  It's *not* okay.  It's absurd - and offensive - to deduce character from appearance.  If there's one thing revisionism can teach trad historians, it's always to look beneath the surface.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 13:18
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 
In regards to various historians' remarks about Richard's "nice" face not being indicative of who he really was, why is it OK for historians who don't respect Richard to put distorted and fake paintings of him on the cover of their books? Sometimes the only standards these historians have are double standards. Maire.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. As I said to another poster, I have no problem with Richard having scoiliosis, in fact it wouldn't bother me if he was four foot with a wooden leg, but what I am interested in is truth. And we have no evidence whatsoever other than from Rous who said he had one shoulder higher than the other, that there was anything visibly wrong with Richard's appearance. His contemporary Jeanne de France had visible scoliosis, was divorced by Louis XII, and beatified because she went into a convent to seek atonement for her 'deformity'. The trouble is that once people like Langdale and Boon use the term 'deformity' which they themselves admit is not PC then others who glance at their article, including the media, pick up such things and run with them. And hidden somewhere in that article, or another, I can't remember which is the admission that further work should be done on the bones. Jo Appleby's 'hunchback' has cast a
long
> shadow over this. And frankly, if the term 'deformity' is not PC now why is it PC to use it in respect of someone from another century - it just fuels the Shakespeare/More arguments?
>  
> I'm a great admirer of Ian Mortimer, in fact it's a pity he doesn't write on Richard, he's probably the best historian of this period that we have. It's his statement that the Society's purpose is 're-assessment of the material, not the rehabilitation of the man' that worries me. I know historians should maintain, wherever possible, a lack of bias and that's what he's getting at, but would the Society really be there if we thought we were seeking to prove a villain? And I have to say I haven't seen it rushing to Richard's defence when all and sundry continue to make headlines about finding the murderous hunchback. Indeed I haven't seen much gushing about what a marvellous man he was either apart from a couple of adverts in History magazine. As for Ian being a member, I very much doubt it, but I wish he were.  
>  
> Hope this clarifies things for you.  H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 10:41
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>  
>
> I actually thought the Lansdale and Boon article was interesting (you can't say more than that at a remove of over 500 years) and very, very favourable to Richard, both as a person and a monarch.  Re the section headed "Richard's Deformity", they were careful to stress that it's not a term that would be used today and that they had specific reasons for choosing it because of how the scoliosis could have impacted on his self-image.  The one problem with any discussion of this kind at the moment, is that no one with the appropriate medical background has yet clarified precisely how much he would have been affected.  So, on the one hand, you get Lansdale and Boon saying it would have been noticeable; on the other, you get Bob Woosnam-Savage saying it wouldn't have been.  Not that it really matters whether one shoulder might have been one inch or two inches higher than the other, or whether there was no visible disparity.  Certainly, for the
purposes of
> Lansdale and Boon, it would have been apparent to Richard *himself*.  I tend to think it's a bit of a red-herring, anyway, and getting too fussed about the precise geometry of a relatively common condition means that we end up challenging traditionalists on their ground rather than ours.  If they think a sore back is indicative of anything other than a sore back...  Well, they're still living in the 15th Century.
>
> I also have no problem with the Ian Mortimer letter.  I'm assuming he's a member of the Society, so he has every right to be published.  The substance of his argument was unexceptional - i.e. that bones can tell us nothing about character or events - and that hyperbole (such as some of the language used about the facial reconstruction - "warm face", "hint of a smile", "not the face of a tyrant") is inimical to genuine historical enquiry.  I *do* have a problem with some of the language employed.  I don't have a copy of the Bulletin to hand, but I think he used the term "crimes", albeit in the context of a continuing debate rather than as an accusation.  Well, if you want to talk of "crimes" in connection with Richard, you also have to use that word when discussing pretty much every other medieval monarch - not to mention a fair few leaders of modern democracies!  But, for all that, the likes of Ian Mortimer are people we should engage
with, not
> censor, and the idea that the Society should not publish a mildly sceptical letter from someone of his standing would be hugely damaging to its credibility.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:21
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>  
>
> And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?
>
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?
>
> (I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "
> > > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > > Subject: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > > New for you on Kindle
> > > the blurb states..
> > >
> > > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> > >
> > > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > > you decide."
> > >
> > > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What book is this? Can we all go and leave constructive reviews?
See what I meant by losing heart? Sigh.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 3, 2013, at 5:41 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

> I actually thought the Lansdale and Boon article was interesting (you can't say more than that at a remove of over 500 years) and very, very favourable to Richard, both as a person and a monarch. Re the section headed "Richard's Deformity", they were careful to stress that it's not a term that would be used today and that they had specific reasons for choosing it because of how the scoliosis could have impacted on his self-image. The one problem with any discussion of this kind at the moment, is that no one with the appropriate medical background has yet clarified precisely how much he would have been affected. So, on the one hand, you get Lansdale and Boon saying it would have been noticeable; on the other, you get Bob Woosnam-Savage saying it wouldn't have been. Not that it really matters whether one shoulder might have been one inch or two inches higher than the other, or whether there was no visible disparity. Certainly, for the purposes of
> Lansdale and Boon, it would have been apparent to Richard *himself*. I tend to think it's a bit of a red-herring, anyway, and getting too fussed about the precise geometry of a relatively common condition means that we end up challenging traditionalists on their ground rather than ours. If they think a sore back is indicative of anything other than a sore back... Well, they're still living in the 15th Century.
>
> I also have no problem with the Ian Mortimer letter. I'm assuming he's a member of the Society, so he has every right to be published. The substance of his argument was unexceptional - i.e. that bones can tell us nothing about character or events - and that hyperbole (such as some of the language used about the facial reconstruction - "warm face", "hint of a smile", "not the face of a tyrant") is inimical to genuine historical enquiry. I *do* have a problem with some of the language employed. I don't have a copy of the Bulletin to hand, but I think he used the term "crimes", albeit in the context of a continuing debate rather than as an accusation. Well, if you want to talk of "crimes" in connection with Richard, you also have to use that word when discussing pretty much every other medieval monarch - not to mention a fair few leaders of modern democracies! But, for all that, the likes of Ian Mortimer are people we should engage with, not
> censor, and the idea that the Society should not publish a mildly sceptical letter from someone of his standing would be hugely damaging to its credibility.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:21
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>
>
> And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?
>
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?
>
> (I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> >
> > I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > > To: "
> > > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > > Subject: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > > New for you on Kindle
> > > the blurb states..
> > >
> > > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> > >
> > > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > > you decide."
> > >
> > > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

It the Ricardian Bulletin Ishita - it came out to us in the UK just before Easter. I don't know whether it's available to view online. 



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 3:15
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

What book is this? Can we all go and leave constructive reviews?
See what I meant by losing heart? Sigh.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 3, 2013, at 5:41 AM, Jonathan Evans <mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> I actually thought the Lansdale and Boon article was interesting (you can't say more than that at a remove of over 500 years) and very, very favourable to Richard, both as a person and a monarch. Re the section headed "Richard's Deformity", they were careful to stress that it's not a term that would be used today and that they had specific reasons for choosing it because of how the scoliosis could have impacted on his self-image. The one problem with any discussion of this kind at the moment, is that no one with the appropriate medical background has yet clarified precisely how much he would have been affected. So, on the one hand, you get Lansdale and Boon saying it would have been noticeable; on the other, you get Bob Woosnam-Savage saying it wouldn't have been. Not that it really matters whether one shoulder might have been one inch or two inches higher than the other, or whether there was no visible disparity. Certainly, for the purposes of
> Lansdale and Boon, it would have been apparent to Richard *himself*. I tend to think it's a bit of a red-herring, anyway, and getting too fussed about the precise geometry of a relatively common condition means that we end up challenging traditionalists on their ground rather than ours. If they think a sore back is indicative of anything other than a sore back... Well, they're still living in the 15th Century.
>
> I also have no problem with the Ian Mortimer letter. I'm assuming he's a member of the Society, so he has every right to be published. The substance of his argument was unexceptional - i.e. that bones can tell us nothing about character or events - and that hyperbole (such as some of the language used about the facial reconstruction - "warm face", "hint of a smile", "not the face of a tyrant") is inimical to genuine historical enquiry. I *do* have a problem with some of the language employed. I don't have a copy of the Bulletin to hand, but I think he used the term "crimes", albeit in the context of a continuing debate rather than as an accusation. Well, if you want to talk of "crimes" in connection with Richard, you also have to use that word when discussing pretty much every other medieval monarch - not to mention a fair few leaders of modern democracies! But, for all that, the likes of Ian Mortimer are people we should engage with, not
> censor, and the idea that the Society should not publish a mildly sceptical letter from someone of his standing would be hugely damaging to its credibility.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:21
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>
>
> And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?
>
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?
>
> (I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> >
> > I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > > Subject: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > > New for you on Kindle
> > > the blurb states..
> > >
> > > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> > >
> > > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > > you decide."
> > >
> > > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I think Ishita's asking about the book Paul mentioned (on Amazon?) rather than the Bulletin...

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 9:35
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 
It the Ricardian Bulletin Ishita - it came out to us in the UK just before Easter. I don't know whether it's available to view online. 

________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 3:15
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

What book is this? Can we all go and leave constructive reviews?
See what I meant by losing heart? Sigh.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 3, 2013, at 5:41 AM, Jonathan Evans <mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> I actually thought the Lansdale and Boon article was interesting (you can't say more than that at a remove of over 500 years) and very, very favourable to Richard, both as a person and a monarch. Re the section headed "Richard's Deformity", they were careful to stress that it's not a term that would be used today and that they had specific reasons for choosing it because of how the scoliosis could have impacted on his self-image. The one problem with any discussion of this kind at the moment, is that no one with the appropriate medical background has yet clarified precisely how much he would have been affected. So, on the one hand, you get Lansdale and Boon saying it would have been noticeable; on the other, you get Bob Woosnam-Savage saying it wouldn't have been. Not that it really matters whether one shoulder might have been one inch or two inches higher than the other, or whether there was no visible disparity. Certainly, for the purposes of
> Lansdale and Boon, it would have been apparent to Richard *himself*. I tend to think it's a bit of a red-herring, anyway, and getting too fussed about the precise geometry of a relatively common condition means that we end up challenging traditionalists on their ground rather than ours. If they think a sore back is indicative of anything other than a sore back... Well, they're still living in the 15th Century.
>
> I also have no problem with the Ian Mortimer letter. I'm assuming he's a member of the Society, so he has every right to be published. The substance of his argument was unexceptional - i.e. that bones can tell us nothing about character or events - and that hyperbole (such as some of the language used about the facial reconstruction - "warm face", "hint of a smile", "not the face of a tyrant") is inimical to genuine historical enquiry. I *do* have a problem with some of the language employed. I don't have a copy of the Bulletin to hand, but I think he used the term "crimes", albeit in the context of a continuing debate rather than as an accusation. Well, if you want to talk of "crimes" in connection with Richard, you also have to use that word when discussing pretty much every other medieval monarch - not to mention a fair few leaders of modern democracies! But, for all that, the likes of Ian Mortimer are people we should engage with, not
> censor, and the idea that the Society should not publish a mildly sceptical letter from someone of his standing would be hugely damaging to its credibility.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:21
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>
>
> And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?
>
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?
>
> (I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> >
> > I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > > Subject: Richard III Brief
> > >
> > >
> > > New for you on Kindle
> > > the blurb states..
> > >
> > > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> > >
> > > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > > you decide."
> > >
> > > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Sorry! I'm having real problems with emails, both sending them and getting them at odd times. So if you get the odd one twice I do apologise.

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> I think Ishita's asking about the book Paul mentioned (on Amazon?) rather than the Bulletin...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 9:35
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>  
> It the Ricardian Bulletin Ishita - it came out to us in the UK just before Easter. I don't know whether it's available to view online. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 3:15
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>  
>
> What book is this? Can we all go and leave constructive reviews?
> See what I meant by losing heart? Sigh.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 3, 2013, at 5:41 AM, Jonathan Evans <mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I actually thought the Lansdale and Boon article was interesting (you can't say more than that at a remove of over 500 years) and very, very favourable to Richard, both as a person and a monarch. Re the section headed "Richard's Deformity", they were careful to stress that it's not a term that would be used today and that they had specific reasons for choosing it because of how the scoliosis could have impacted on his self-image. The one problem with any discussion of this kind at the moment, is that no one with the appropriate medical background has yet clarified precisely how much he would have been affected. So, on the one hand, you get Lansdale and Boon saying it would have been noticeable; on the other, you get Bob Woosnam-Savage saying it wouldn't have been. Not that it really matters whether one shoulder might have been one inch or two inches higher than the other, or whether there was no visible disparity. Certainly, for the purposes of
> > Lansdale and Boon, it would have been apparent to Richard *himself*. I tend to think it's a bit of a red-herring, anyway, and getting too fussed about the precise geometry of a relatively common condition means that we end up challenging traditionalists on their ground rather than ours. If they think a sore back is indicative of anything other than a sore back... Well, they're still living in the 15th Century.
> >
> > I also have no problem with the Ian Mortimer letter. I'm assuming he's a member of the Society, so he has every right to be published. The substance of his argument was unexceptional - i.e. that bones can tell us nothing about character or events - and that hyperbole (such as some of the language used about the facial reconstruction - "warm face", "hint of a smile", "not the face of a tyrant") is inimical to genuine historical enquiry. I *do* have a problem with some of the language employed. I don't have a copy of the Bulletin to hand, but I think he used the term "crimes", albeit in the context of a continuing debate rather than as an accusation. Well, if you want to talk of "crimes" in connection with Richard, you also have to use that word when discussing pretty much every other medieval monarch - not to mention a fair few leaders of modern democracies! But, for all that, the likes of Ian Mortimer are people we should engage with, not
> > censor, and the idea that the Society should not publish a mildly sceptical letter from someone of his standing would be hugely damaging to its credibility.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: hjnatdat <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:21
> > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?
> >
> > I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?
> >
> > (I hope this does not appear twice - the first got lost in the ether)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I composed my very first Amazon review asking them to correct this.
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > ejbronte@
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Judy Thomson
> > > <judygerard.thomson@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, then, I must be "hunchbacked." And my husband, most of my family,
> > > > and several good friends. Good grief!!!
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:28 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What is the book? Bloody cheek.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> > > > Subject: Richard III Brief
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > New for you on Kindle
> > > > the blurb states..
> > > >
> > > > "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> > > > remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> > > > of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> > > > proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
> > > >
> > > > It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> > > > over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> > > > Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> > > > would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> > > > capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> > > > blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> > > > you decide."
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And the Ricardian Bulletin also gives a marvellous review of the 'Kingmaker's Daughter'. Anne the pawn lives.
The fridge really beckons tonight.
 Perhaps I should watch Starkey again to get a more balanced view? At least he misses out the hunchback. 


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 20:28
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

What is the book?  Bloody cheek.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
Subject: Richard III Brief

 
New for you on Kindle
the blurb states..

"Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.

It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
you decide."

Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?
I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 20:28
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

What is the book?  Bloody cheek.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
Subject: Richard III Brief

 
New for you on Kindle
the blurb states..

"Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.

It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
you decide."

Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

A hunchback? It's disgusting to even use that ugly word. Some of these traditionalists probably would have persecuted Galileo.
Maire.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say?
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 20:28
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>  
>
> What is the book?  Bloody cheek.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 19:31
> Subject: Richard III Brief
>
>  
> New for you on Kindle
> the blurb states..
>
> "Now, after over 500 hundred years, buried in a shallow grave, the lost
> remains of Richard III have been found. On the 4th February 2013 a team
> of academics from Leicester University released scientific evidence that
> proved a body found under a car park in Leicester was that of Richard III.
>
> It proved conclusively that Richard III was a hunchback, a fact that
> over the years many Ricardians have denied. Once more, the debate on
> Richard III can be opened. Who was the man? A multiple murderer who
> would stop at nothing to achieve ultimate power? Or a loyal brother, a
> capable leader and great military commander whose name has been
> blackened for centuries? In this book we present the evidence and then
> you decide."
>
> Thanks to Joy Appleby I think!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes...I was pretty taken aback by that......:0/

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And the Ricardian Bulletin also gives a marvellous review of the 'Kingmaker's Daughter'. Anne the pawn lives.
> The fridge really beckons tonight.
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

"And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
say?
I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
was innocent?"

Doug here:
Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
imagine riding a horse!
There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
"deformed"?
As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
"amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
"historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
Doug

Hi Doug,
Re the deformity that's exactly what I was getting at. Once you start using emotive words like deformity they take on a life of their own. I had a childhood accident which left me literally 'scarred'. Imagine some biographer/psycho-analysist in a couple of hundred years' time making the following erudite assumptions because I never mentioned the scar in my correspondence:
1. she had to wear clothes to cover the scar because no-one ever mentions it (rubbish)
2. the scar meant that she felt withdrawn and different to other children (rubbish)
3. she probably entered a career in the public sector to help others who might have suffered similarly (utter tosh)
Trouble is once they start making unfounded statements like this it devalues what could have been a good article (as Jonathan says)and it heads for sensationalism instead.
 
I also agree with what you say about Mortimer; I think very few of us on this forum, or who have battled against the Richard myths for so long, know that remaining objective is a key part. In fact it's some of the so-called professional historians who seem to have this failing!


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
say?
I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
was innocent?"

Doug here:
Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
imagine riding a horse!
There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
"deformed"?
As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
"amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
"historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
Doug

Sorry I should have said 'don't know' in the second bit. 



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 15:34
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief

Hi Doug,
Re the deformity that's exactly what I was getting at. Once you start using emotive words like deformity they take on a life of their own. I had a childhood accident which left me literally 'scarred'. Imagine some biographer/psycho-analysist in a couple of hundred years' time making the following erudite assumptions because I never mentioned the scar in my correspondence:
1. she had to wear clothes to cover the scar because no-one ever mentions it (rubbish)
2. the scar meant that she felt withdrawn and different to other children (rubbish)
3. she probably entered a career in the public sector to help others who might have suffered similarly (utter tosh)
Trouble is once they start making unfounded statements like this it devalues what could have been a good article (as Jonathan says)and it heads for sensationalism instead.
 
I also agree with what you say about Mortimer; I think very few of us on this forum, or who have battled against the Richard myths for so long, know that remaining objective is a key part. In fact it's some of the so-called professional historians who seem to have this failing!


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief

 

Hilary Jones wrote: "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they say? I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he was innocent?" Doug here: Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties? I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't imagine riding a
horse! There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard, in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being "deformed"? As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter! Doug

Here's Mortimer's interview for the Ricardian Bulletin, which is a lot more open-minded in tone than his Times article (as well as, unfortunately, being somewhat older).

http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/Ricardianinterview.htm

You'd think, given his revisionist approach to Edward II's death, that he might be similarly sceptical about received wisdom concerning 1483-85, but the evidence suggests otherwise.  I'd love to know what lay behind the Times piece.  I wonder if it could be something as simple as a reflexive dislike of the concept of rehabilitation as opposed to reassessment, as hinted at in his recent letter to the Bulletin?  Maybe if he were writing a history rather than an article, he'd revert to a more cautious approach...

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

Hilary Jones wrote:

"And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
say?
I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
was innocent?"

Doug here:
Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
imagine riding a horse!
There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
"deformed"?
As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
"amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
"historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
Doug

My back generally feels better after riding!

A J


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity.
> In
> fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> say?
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say
> he
> was innocent?"
>
> Doug here:
> Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As
> in
> something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have
> trouble
> just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking.
> I
> still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I
> can't
> imagine riding a horse!
> There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on
> Richard,
> in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> "deformed"?
> As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians,
> aka
> "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> Doug
>
>
>

And another (rather long) article from Mortimer.  It contains this paragraph:

"Understanding the questions raised by accounts of Edward's death  and,
indeed, understanding any contentious historical subject  requires a
great deal of care and attention to detail. There are no simple answers.
We cannot say that it was more likely' that Edward was murdered or not
on the strength of our perceptions of his suspected murderers' motives.
A historical fact cannot be determined on the basis of motive any more
than a modern suspect may be found guilty of murder by a policeman's
hunch. And this applies no matter who you are. The educated guess of a
professor of history may be more educated than that of the man in the
street but it is still a guess. A more rigorous approach is necessary. "

The Edward in question is Edward II rather than Edward V, but the approach he adopts parallels revisionist examinations of 1483 through till the execution of Warbeck.

http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 15:55
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)


 
Here's Mortimer's interview for the Ricardian Bulletin, which is a lot more open-minded in tone than his Times article (as well as, unfortunately, being somewhat older).

http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/Ricardianinterview.htm

You'd think, given his revisionist approach to Edward II's death, that he might be similarly sceptical about received wisdom concerning 1483-85, but the evidence suggests otherwise.  I'd love to know what lay behind the Times piece.  I wonder if it could be something as simple as a reflexive dislike of the concept of rehabilitation as opposed to reassessment, as hinted at in his recent letter to the Bulletin?  Maybe if he were writing a history rather than an article, he'd revert to a more cautious approach...

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

Hilary Jones wrote:

"And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
say?
I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
was innocent?"

Doug here:
Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
imagine riding a horse!
There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
"deformed"?
As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
"amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
"historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
Doug

Thanks. It could well be that. He certainly has a deep and pragmatic understanding of the usurpation problems which faced Henry IV and I found his book on him very sympathetic. I understand his problems with rehabilitation by 'fanatics', if not based on facts or probablities. I suppose he's one instance where Philippa's emotion in the first programme might have misfired. Let's hope he is angling to do a re-assessment; after all, if he's working 'forwards' his next subject should be Henry VI. I enjoyed this theory on Edward II, which shows he is prepared to stick his neck out - with the appropriate evidence. 



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 15:55
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

Here's Mortimer's interview for the Ricardian Bulletin, which is a lot more open-minded in tone than his Times article (as well as, unfortunately, being somewhat older).

http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/Ricardianinterview.htm

You'd think, given his revisionist approach to Edward II's death, that he might be similarly sceptical about received wisdom concerning 1483-85, but the evidence suggests otherwise.  I'd love to know what lay behind the Times piece.  I wonder if it could be something as simple as a reflexive dislike of the concept of rehabilitation as opposed to reassessment, as hinted at in his recent letter to the Bulletin?  Maybe if he were writing a history rather than an article, he'd revert to a more cautious approach...

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

Hilary Jones wrote:

"And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
say?
I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
was innocent?"

Doug here:
Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
imagine riding a horse!
There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
"deformed"?
As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
"amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
"historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
Doug

As I recall it he did spend some years working in, I think it was Devon, Records Office. That's why I'm sure Marie and Carol would like him!
But he is right, and that is a very fair statement.

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> And another (rather long) article from Mortimer.  It contains this paragraph:
>
> "Understanding the questions raised by accounts of Edward’s death â€" and,
> indeed, understanding any contentious historical subject â€" requires a
> great deal of care and attention to detail. There are no simple answers.
> We cannot say that it was ‘more likely’ that Edward was murdered or not
> on the strength of our perceptions of his suspected murderers’ motives.
> A historical fact cannot be determined on the basis of motive any more
> than a modern suspect may be found guilty of murder by a policeman's
> hunch. And this applies no matter who you are. The educated guess of a
> professor of history may be more educated than that of the man in the
> street but it is still a guess. A more rigorous approach is necessary. "
>
> The Edward in question is Edward II rather than Edward V, but the approach he adopts parallels revisionist examinations of 1483 through till the execution of Warbeck.
>
> http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 15:55
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>  
> Here's Mortimer's interview for the Ricardian Bulletin, which is a lot more open-minded in tone than his Times article (as well as, unfortunately, being somewhat older).
>
> http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/Ricardianinterview.htm
>
> You'd think, given his revisionist approach to Edward II's death, that he might be similarly sceptical about received wisdom concerning 1483-85, but the evidence suggests otherwise.  I'd love to know what lay behind the Times piece.  I wonder if it could be something as simple as a reflexive dislike of the concept of rehabilitation as opposed to reassessment, as hinted at in his recent letter to the Bulletin?  Maybe if he were writing a history rather than an article, he'd revert to a more cautious approach...
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
> fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> say?
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
> was innocent?"
>
> Doug here:
> Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
> something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
> just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
> still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
> imagine riding a horse!
> There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
> in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> "deformed"?
> As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
> "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The trouble is when you start *analysing* people you start labelling them....departmentalising them...this could be totally barking up the wrong tree in some cases...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
> Re the deformity that's exactly what I was getting at. Once you start using emotive words like deformity they take on a life of their own. I had a childhood accident which left me literally 'scarred'. Imagine some biographer/psycho-analysist in a couple of hundred years' time making the following erudite assumptions because I never mentioned the scar in my correspondence:
> 1. she had to wear clothes to cover the scar because no-one ever mentions it (rubbish)
> 2. the scar meant that she felt withdrawn and different to other children (rubbish)
> 3. she probably entered a career in the public sector to help others who might have suffered similarly (utter tosh)
> Trouble is once they start making unfounded statements like this it devalues what could have been a good article (as Jonathan says)and it heads for sensationalism instead.
>  
> I also agree with what you say about Mortimer; I think very few of us on this forum, or who have battled against the Richard myths for so long, know that remaining objective is a key part. In fact it's some of the so-called professional historians who seem to have this failing!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>  
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
> fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> say?
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
> was innocent?"
>
> Doug here:
> Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
> something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
> just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
> still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
> imagine riding a horse!
> There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
> in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> "deformed"?
> As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
> "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

Last Mortimer quote, I promise.  But it really is like looking at Ricardian studies through a mirror darkly:

"The traditionalists' preferred method - the only one available to them -
is here laid out clearly. It amounts to taking each detail and
subjecting it to questioning, finding ambiguities, setting aside my
reading of the evidence, promoting their own as 'more likely' (in their
opinion), ignoring the new inconsistencies thereby created, and coaxing
the reader to a complacent view that, because aspects of my work can be
called into question, the traditional narrative is automatically
rehabilitated. This is the equivalent of pulling apart a mountain and
showing how each stone is actually very small, and concluding that the
mountain never existed."

Jonathan




________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 16:25
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)


 
As I recall it he did spend some years working in, I think it was Devon, Records Office. That's why I'm sure Marie and Carol would like him!
But he is right, and that is a very fair statement.

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> And another (rather long) article from Mortimer.  It contains this paragraph:
>
> "Understanding the questions raised by accounts of Edwardâ¬"s death â¬" and,
> indeed, understanding any contentious historical subject â¬" requires a
> great deal of care and attention to detail. There are no simple answers.
> We cannot say that it was â¬Ümore likelyâ¬" that Edward was murdered or not
> on the strength of our perceptions of his suspected murderersâ¬" motives.
> A historical fact cannot be determined on the basis of motive any more
> than a modern suspect may be found guilty of murder by a policeman's
> hunch. And this applies no matter who you are. The educated guess of a
> professor of history may be more educated than that of the man in the
> street but it is still a guess. A more rigorous approach is necessary. "
>
> The Edward in question is Edward II rather than Edward V, but the approach he adopts parallels revisionist examinations of 1483 through till the execution of Warbeck.
>
> http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 15:55
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>  
> Here's Mortimer's interview for the Ricardian Bulletin, which is a lot more open-minded in tone than his Times article (as well as, unfortunately, being somewhat older).
>
> http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/Ricardianinterview.htm
>
> You'd think, given his revisionist approach to Edward II's death, that he might be similarly sceptical about received wisdom concerning 1483-85, but the evidence suggests otherwise.  I'd love to know what lay behind the Times piece.  I wonder if it could be something as simple as a reflexive dislike of the concept of rehabilitation as opposed to reassessment, as hinted at in his recent letter to the Bulletin?  Maybe if he were writing a history rather than an article, he'd revert to a more cautious approach...
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
> fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> say?
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
> was innocent?"
>
> Doug here:
> Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
> something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
> just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
> still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
> imagine riding a horse!
> There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
> in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> "deformed"?
> As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
> "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Indeed - like the childhood analysis a few days' back. Ian Mortimer's statement which Jonathan has just quoted sums it up quite nicely.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 16:27
Subject: Re: Richard III Brief


 

The trouble is when you start *analysing* people you start labelling them....departmentalising them...this could be totally barking up the wrong tree in some cases...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
> Re the deformity that's exactly what I was getting at. Once you start using emotive words like deformity they take on a life of their own. I had a childhood accident which left me literally 'scarred'. Imagine some biographer/psycho-analysist in a couple of hundred years' time making the following erudite assumptions because I never mentioned the scar in my correspondence:
> 1. she had to wear clothes to cover the scar because no-one ever mentions it (rubbish)
> 2. the scar meant that she felt withdrawn and different to other children (rubbish)
> 3. she probably entered a career in the public sector to help others who might have suffered similarly (utter tosh)
> Trouble is once they start making unfounded statements like this it devalues what could have been a good article (as Jonathan says)and it heads for sensationalism instead.
>  
> I also agree with what you say about Mortimer; I think very few of us on this forum, or who have battled against the Richard myths for so long, know that remaining objective is a key part. In fact it's some of the so-called professional historians who seem to have this failing!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>  
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
> fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> say?
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
> was innocent?"
>
> Doug here:
> Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
> something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
> just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
> still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
> imagine riding a horse!
> There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
> in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> "deformed"?
> As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
> "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

Too bad he doesn't actually say anything about leaving preconceptions at
the door - or does he?

A J


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:25 AM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> As I recall it he did spend some years working in, I think it was Devon,
> Records Office. That's why I'm sure Marie and Carol would like him!
> But he is right, and that is a very fair statement.
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > And another (rather long) article from Mortimer.ý It contains this
> paragraph:
> >
> > "Understanding the questions raised by accounts of Edwardýýýs death ýý"
> and,
> > indeed, understanding any contentious historical subject ýý" requires a
> > great deal of care and attention to detail. There are no simple answers.
> > We cannot say that it was ýýýmore likelyýýý that Edward was murdered or
> not
> > on the strength of our perceptions of his suspected murderersýýý motives.
> > A historical fact cannot be determined on the basis of motive any more
> > than a modern suspect may be found guilty of murder by a policeman's
> > hunch. And this applies no matter who you are. The educated guess of a
> > professor of history may be more educated than that of the man in the
> > street but it is still a guess. A more rigorous approach is necessary. "
> >
> > The Edward in question is Edward II rather than Edward V, but the
> approach he adopts parallels revisionist examinations of 1483 through till
> the execution of Warbeck.
> >
> > http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> > To: "" <
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 15:55
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> Brief)
> >
> >
> > ý
> > Here's Mortimer's interview for the Ricardian Bulletin, which is a lot
> more open-minded in tone than his Times article (as well as, unfortunately,
> being somewhat older).
> >
> > http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/Ricardianinterview.htm
> >
> > You'd think, given his revisionist approach to Edward II's death, that
> he might be similarly sceptical about received wisdom concerning 1483-85,
> but the evidence suggests otherwise.ý I'd love to know what lay behind the
> Times piece.ý I wonder if it could be something as simple as a reflexive
> dislike of the concept of rehabilitation as opposed to reassessment, as
> hinted at in his recent letter to the Bulletin?ý Maybe if he were writing
> a history rather than an article, he'd revert to a more cautious approach...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
> > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> >
> >
> > ý
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote
> a
> > whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity.
> In
> > fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere
> is
> > the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> > mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King,
> they
> > say?
> > I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> > from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say
> he
> > was innocent?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"?
> As in
> > something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> > I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have
> trouble
> > just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough)
> walking. I
> > still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I
> can't
> > imagine riding a horse!
> > There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> > complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on
> Richard,
> > in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> > "deformed"?
> > As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians,
> aka
> > "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> > historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> > reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> > "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> As I recall it he did spend some years working in, I think it was Devon, Records Office. That's why I'm sure Marie and Carol would like him!
> But he is right, and that is a very fair statement.

Carol responds:

I did like the interview, anyway. It's interesting that he so vehemently rejects being labeled an academic and resists the pressure to be objective. I haven't read his Henry IV book or anything else by him (my Bulletin hasn't arrived yet for some reason), but his approach sounds similar to Kendall's--bringing in emotions and personality (I can't remember the exact word he used and can't check without losing my post) but not assuming that we know the truth based on deduced motives. Hicks and others should take note.

BTW, I'm reading Sean Cunningham's Richard III: A Royal Enigma," the only one of the books I ordered that has arrived in the mail. It's not as hostile as I feared, and I like his assessment of Richard's earliest letter as evidence that he had thoroughly learned the lessons of good lordship (both his own obligations and what he should expect from his retainers). Not bribery at all but the promise of good lordship to a loyal retainer for (presumably) coming through in a pinch. You rub my back; I'll rub yours. It's a necessary political skill. And, in any case, how else was he supposed to get the money to raise and pay the troops if Edward didn't give it to him?

Still, though, he reminds me of Hicks and Pollard in his assumption that Richard must have been ambitious and ruthless (though he does temper it by saying that he was no more so than other lords of his time) or he would not have executed poor innocent Hastings (Richard's "tragic victim"), "usurped" the throne, or "killed" his nephews. The problem is, the assumption of ruthlessness stems from the assumption of guilt on the other counts. Historians would read Richard's actions as duke of Gloucester differently if he had remained Protector and died on Edward V's orders, yet they would be exactly the same actions.

Carol

Historians also read golden E4's usurpation of the throne as a non-usurpation, only to turn around and read Richard's non-usurpation of the throne as a usurpation. It all depends on the historian's POV and agenda, and apparently doesn't have to make sense.


~Weds


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

<snipped>

>...Historians would read Richard's actions as duke of Gloucester differently if he had remained Protector and died on Edward V's orders, yet they would be exactly the same actions.

Just like the news now!

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 4, 2013, at 1:07 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



Historians also read golden E4's usurpation of the throne as a non-usurpation, only to turn around and read Richard's non-usurpation of the throne as a usurpation. It all depends on the historian's POV and agenda, and apparently doesn't have to make sense.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

<snipped>

>...Historians would read Richard's actions as duke of Gloucester differently if he had remained Protector and died on Edward V's orders, yet they would be exactly the same actions.

Hello Forum members,
Let's take comfort from what I believe is a quote from Sir Francis Bacon that I haven't yet managed to locate or put in context!
"Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority."
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 3 Apr 2013, at 16:08, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
> fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> say?
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
> was innocent?"
>
> Doug here:
> Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
> something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
> just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
> still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
> imagine riding a horse!
> There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
> in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> "deformed"?
> As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
> "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> Doug
>
>

...or why I won't join the society...Maire.
--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Forum members,
> Let's take comfort from what I believe is a quote from Sir Francis Bacon that I haven't yet managed to locate or put in context!
> "Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority."
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 3 Apr 2013, at 16:08, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> > whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
> > fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> > the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> > mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> > say?
> > I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> > from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
> > was innocent?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
> > something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> > I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
> > just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
> > still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
> > imagine riding a horse!
> > There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> > complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
> > in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> > "deformed"?
> > As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
> > "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> > historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> > reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> > "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> > Doug
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

After all Doug, Sir Thomas More is a Saint so he must be right!!

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
> fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> say?
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
> was innocent?"
>
> Doug here:
> Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
> something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
> just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
> still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
> imagine riding a horse!
> There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
> in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> "deformed"?
> As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
> "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> Doug
>

It could be that it was because he was talking about Edward II, where the preconception is that he was mudered. In some ways he devotes his whole Section on Edward to that and disproving it.


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 16:45
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

Too bad he doesn't actually say anything about leaving preconceptions at
the door - or does he?

A J


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:25 AM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> As I recall it he did spend some years working in, I think it was Devon,
> Records Office. That's why I'm sure Marie and Carol would like him!
> But he is right, and that is a very fair statement.
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > And another (rather long) article from Mortimer.  It contains this
> paragraph:
> >
> > "Understanding the questions raised by accounts of Edwardâ¬"s death â¬"
> and,
> > indeed, understanding any contentious historical subject â¬" requires a
> > great deal of care and attention to detail. There are no simple answers.
> > We cannot say that it was â¬Ümore likelyâ¬" that Edward was murdered or
> not
> > on the strength of our perceptions of his suspected murderersâ¬" motives.
> > A historical fact cannot be determined on the basis of motive any more
> > than a modern suspect may be found guilty of murder by a policeman's
> > hunch. And this applies no matter who you are. The educated guess of a
> > professor of history may be more educated than that of the man in the
> > street but it is still a guess. A more rigorous approach is necessary. "
> >
> > The Edward in question is Edward II rather than Edward V, but the
> approach he adopts parallels revisionist examinations of 1483 through till
> the execution of Warbeck.
> >
> > http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> > To: "" <
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 15:55
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> Brief)
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Here's Mortimer's interview for the Ricardian Bulletin, which is a lot
> more open-minded in tone than his Times article (as well as, unfortunately,
> being somewhat older).
> >
> > http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/Ricardianinterview.htm
> >
> > You'd think, given his revisionist approach to Edward II's death, that
> he might be similarly sceptical about received wisdom concerning 1483-85,
> but the evidence suggests otherwise.  I'd love to know what lay behind the
> Times piece.  I wonder if it could be something as simple as a reflexive
> dislike of the concept of rehabilitation as opposed to reassessment, as
> hinted at in his recent letter to the Bulletin?  Maybe if he were writing
> a history rather than an article, he'd revert to a more cautious approach...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
> > Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote
> a
> > whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity.
> In
> > fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere
> is
> > the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> > mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King,
> they
> > say?
> > I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> > from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say
> he
> > was innocent?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"?
> As in
> > something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> > I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have
> trouble
> > just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough)
> walking. I
> > still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I
> can't
> > imagine riding a horse!
> > There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> > complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on
> Richard,
> > in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> > "deformed"?
> > As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians,
> aka
> > "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> > historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> > reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> > "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

He's quite right; this is how those at professorial level love to argue - take someone else's work to bits and supplant it with your own 'new findings or opinions'. I've been slapped down for saying this before.
 
I can see how he did the opposite of this with Edward II. His work is really impressive because it tends towards the putting together rather than the pulling apart. To start with he had to prove that it was possible that the person buried in Gloucester Cathedral is not Edward even though it had been displayed. And then he had to put all the pieces of the jigsaw on the Continent into place around the Fieschi Letter and also to pinpoint a moment when Edward III could have/did meet his father. It's a very scholarly work on something so sensational; I could imagine in other hands it would have read like Hicks or Weir, you know, this probably happened, perhaps it happened etc. But that's probably also why it's less well known.
 
I think we could do with him to bring some new veracity to Ricardian studies - if only to point out the areas where there is a lack of evidence.  


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 16:28
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

Last Mortimer quote, I promise.  But it really is like looking at Ricardian studies through a mirror darkly:

"The traditionalists' preferred method - the only one available to them -
is here laid out clearly. It amounts to taking each detail and
subjecting it to questioning, finding ambiguities, setting aside my
reading of the evidence, promoting their own as 'more likely' (in their
opinion), ignoring the new inconsistencies thereby created, and coaxing
the reader to a complacent view that, because aspects of my work can be
called into question, the traditional narrative is automatically
rehabilitated. This is the equivalent of pulling apart a mountain and
showing how each stone is actually very small, and concluding that the
mountain never existed."

Jonathan

________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 16:25
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)


 
As I recall it he did spend some years working in, I think it was Devon, Records Office. That's why I'm sure Marie and Carol would like him!
But he is right, and that is a very fair statement.

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> And another (rather long) article from Mortimer.  It contains this paragraph:
>
> "Understanding the questions raised by accounts of Edwardâ¬"s death â¬" and,
> indeed, understanding any contentious historical subject â¬" requires a
> great deal of care and attention to detail. There are no simple answers.
> We cannot say that it was â¬Ümore likelyâ¬" that Edward was murdered or not
> on the strength of our perceptions of his suspected murderersâ¬" motives.
> A historical fact cannot be determined on the basis of motive any more
> than a modern suspect may be found guilty of murder by a policeman's
> hunch. And this applies no matter who you are. The educated guess of a
> professor of history may be more educated than that of the man in the
> street but it is still a guess. A more rigorous approach is necessary. "
>
> The Edward in question is Edward II rather than Edward V, but the approach he adopts parallels revisionist examinations of 1483 through till the execution of Warbeck.
>
> http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 15:55
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>  
> Here's Mortimer's interview for the Ricardian Bulletin, which is a lot more open-minded in tone than his Times article (as well as, unfortunately, being somewhat older).
>
> http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/Ricardianinterview.htm
>
> You'd think, given his revisionist approach to Edward II's death, that he might be similarly sceptical about received wisdom concerning 1483-85, but the evidence suggests otherwise.  I'd love to know what lay behind the Times piece.  I wonder if it could be something as simple as a reflexive dislike of the concept of rehabilitation as opposed to reassessment, as hinted at in his recent letter to the Bulletin?  Maybe if he were writing a history rather than an article, he'd revert to a more cautious approach...
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 16:08
> Subject: Re: Richard III Brief
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
> fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> say?
> I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
> was innocent?"
>
> Doug here:
> Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
> something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
> just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
> still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
> imagine riding a horse!
> There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
> in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> "deformed"?
> As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
> "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What a disgrace that a man who attended burnings of fellow human beings and even harangued them should be sainted. I find it quite extraordinary...Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> After all Doug, Sir Thomas More is a Saint so he must be right!!
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "And then we have the Ricardian Bulletin where Lansdale and Boon devote a
> > whole section of their analysis on how Richard coped with his deformity. In
> > fact the section is labelled Richard's Deformity. Tucked away somewhere is
> > the statement that it couldn't have been that visible because no-one
> > mentioned it and - perhaps it got worse during the time he was King, they
> > say?
> > I despair even more. How can they put this in the Bulletin? And a letter
> > from Ian Mortimer implying that Ricardians are are using the find to say he
> > was innocent?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Perhaps we'd be better off describing the scoliosis as a "disability"? As in
> > something Richard "overcame" in order to carry out his duties?
> > I have a bad back that acts up on occasion and when it does, I have trouble
> > just getting up out of a chair, sleeping or (if it's bad enough) walking. I
> > still get done what needs doing, but it certainly makes them harder. I can't
> > imagine riding a horse!
> > There are undoubtedly thousands (millions?) of people with a similar
> > complaint/s, maybe referring to the scoliosis, and its' effects on Richard,
> > in that sort of way would help move the conversation away from his being
> > "deformed"?
> > As for Mortimer, it sounds as if he's fearful we unlettered barbarians, aka
> > "amateurs", have been mucking about in the sacred precincts of true
> > historians, using silly things such as "logic" and scientific "facts" to
> > reach conclusions. Silly amateurs, everyone *knows* it's only what
> > "historians" discover, conclude and write that matter!
> > Doug
> >
>

A J Hibbard wrote:

"My back generally feels better after riding!"

I was thinking of those times (rare, thankfully) when I can't even
straighten up without using my hands to "climb up" a piece of furniture - or
the wall! When the problem isn't *that* bad, I have found walking to help;
so of course the back never acts up when the weather's nice!
Sorry to say, I've only been on a horse twice in my life - and I live in a
semi-rural area of Indiana. However, since the mechanization of agriculture,
horses tend to be a luxury.
Doug

ricard1an wrote:

"After all Doug, Sir Thomas More is a Saint so he must be right!!"

It's my opinion that too often those who pass as "historians" should more
properly (sorry!) be termed "chroniclers". There *is* a difference - a big
one! In my personal view, a historian does his/her best to discover what
actually happened and, if possible, why. If primary sources are lacking,
then secndary ones *can* be used, but only carefully and after ascertaining
(another word I've always wanted to use!) that the secondary source/s aren't
in conlfict with what *is* known.
A chonicler, OTOH, simply takes what is "known", puts it in chonological
order and tries to make in fit. Which is why regimes, oh, say such as the
early Tudors?, were quite willing to allow chronicles that were effusive, to
say the least, in their treatment of the current/semi-current "history" of
themselves.
Something I find that's illustrative of this is that there wasn't a true
history of Richard III written until *after* the Tudors were no longer
reigning. That alone should have given any historian worth the name a pause.
It's not as if it isn't well known that being able to publish something
contrary to established views is a fairly recent development; or should be
to any "historian". After all, today's "history" is very often yesterday's
politics, with all the dangers going against the official position bring
with it. Which *should* lead to a measurable amount of scepticism.
And that doesn't touch the vanity part of established authors who write on
historical subjects...
Doug

Hilary Jones wrote:

> [snip] I think we could do with him to bring some new veracity to Ricardian studies - if only to point out the areas where there is a lack of evidence.  

Carol responds:

Actually, we don't need him to point that out. We know where there's a lack of evidence--exactly the place where we need solid evidence most--the Protectorship.

Now if he could convince the traditionalists that Mancini and the Croyland chronicler (not to mention More and Vergil) are not to be relied on for that period and that the records we need are missing, he would be performing a great service.

Until then, Richard will be continue to be accused of four illegal executions and a usurpation, all of which "prove" that he was sufficiently ruthless, ambitious, and insecure to murder his own nephews.

carol

I think we're saying the same thing. The lack of evidence is where More, Mancini, Croyland, Rous etc are taken as evidence and shouldn't be. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 20:10
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

Hilary Jones wrote:

> [snip] I think we could do with him to bring some new veracity to Ricardian studies - if only to point out the areas where there is a lack of evidence.  

Carol responds:

Actually, we don't need him to point that out. We know where there's a lack of evidence--exactly the place where we need solid evidence most--the Protectorship.

Now if he could convince the traditionalists that Mancini and the Croyland chronicler (not to mention More and Vergil) are not to be relied on for that period and that the records we need are missing, he would be performing a great service.

Until then, Richard will be continue to be accused of four illegal executions and a usurpation, all of which "prove" that he was sufficiently ruthless, ambitious, and insecure to murder his own nephews.

carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think we're saying the same thing. The lack of evidence is where More, Mancini, Croyland, Rous etc are taken as evidence and shouldn't be. 
>
Carol responds:

Right. All we need is for a reputable historian to convince other historians of that truth, especially as regards the Protectorate. Mancini, Croyland, and even Rous do have their uses, but they have to be viewed as flawed, contradictory, and incomplete. More and Vergil are chiefly useful in demonstrating how far the facts had been distorted by their time. That any reputable historian still takes them as evidence of Richard's motives and actions is a crime against truth.

Carol

Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
reputable historian for that bit of history?

And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?

A J


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think we're saying the same thing. The lack of evidence is where More,
> Mancini, Croyland, Rous etc are taken as evidence and shouldn't be.ý
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Right. All we need is for a reputable historian to convince other
> historians of that truth, especially as regards the Protectorate. Mancini,
> Croyland, and even Rous do have their uses, but they have to be viewed as
> flawed, contradictory, and incomplete. More and Vergil are chiefly useful
> in demonstrating how far the facts had been distorted by their time. That
> any reputable historian still takes them as evidence of Richard's motives
> and actions is a crime against truth.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a reputable historian for that bit of history?
>
> And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not, in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
>
> A J
Carol responds:

Sorry, AJ, but I don't understand why you're angry or what you're talking about. I wasn't referring to Ian Mortimer or any other specific person. All I'm saying is that we need a reputable historian (not specified) to prove to the traditionalists that Mancini, Croyland, and Rous are not as authoritative as they would have us believe and that many documents, particularly for the Protectorate, are missing.

I'm not saying that we on this list aren't qualified to discuss these questions among ourselves, and I would never discourage us from doing so. I'm only saying that until a reputable historian makes these arguments in a published work, the traditionalists will keep arguing that those sources "prove" Richard's ruthlessness. I don't think the traditionalist historians will listen to you or me, no matter how cogent our arguments.

I'm sorry if I was unclear, and I don't see anything objectionable in that position.

Carol

A J, as a newbie, and absolutely, not an historian, or even a serious scholar of Richard III, I think we have to separate those of us who truly want to know and are learning, and those who have obviously read widely, and know a LOT. But, really HISTORIANS are just titles. I think we all have to search, sift, and make our own personal opinions.

On Apr 5, 2013, at 6:17 PM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> reputable historian for that bit of history?
>
> And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
>
> A J
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we're saying the same thing. The lack of evidence is where More,
>> Mancini, Croyland, Rous etc are taken as evidence and shouldn't be.Â
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Right. All we need is for a reputable historian to convince other
>> historians of that truth, especially as regards the Protectorate. Mancini,
>> Croyland, and even Rous do have their uses, but they have to be viewed as
>> flawed, contradictory, and incomplete. More and Vergil are chiefly useful
>> in demonstrating how far the facts had been distorted by their time. That
>> any reputable historian still takes them as evidence of Richard's motives
>> and actions is a crime against truth.
>>
>> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Not angry - just tired.

While experts are nice to have in the camp, they seem to be hard to come
by. Is the problem that these discussions never get "published" anywhere?
And if that's true, why not? Anybody can publish on the internet now, and
I'd like to believe that if information is solid & arguments persuasive,
credibility can be built up.

So what are people on this list doing as a result of discussions here? How
are the outcomes being disseminated?

A J




On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:13 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> reputable historian for that bit of history?
> >
> > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> >
> > A J
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry, AJ, but I don't understand why you're angry or what you're talking
> about. I wasn't referring to Ian Mortimer or any other specific person. All
> I'm saying is that we need a reputable historian (not specified) to prove
> to the traditionalists that Mancini, Croyland, and Rous are not as
> authoritative as they would have us believe and that many documents,
> particularly for the Protectorate, are missing.
>
> I'm not saying that we on this list aren't qualified to discuss these
> questions among ourselves, and I would never discourage us from doing so.
> I'm only saying that until a reputable historian makes these arguments in a
> published work, the traditionalists will keep arguing that those sources
> "prove" Richard's ruthlessness. I don't think the traditionalist historians
> will listen to you or me, no matter how cogent our arguments.
>
> I'm sorry if I was unclear, and I don't see anything objectionable in that
> position.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.

This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.

We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.

The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.

The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.

So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.

Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.

~Weds


--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
reputable historian for that bit of history?
>
> And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
>
> A J

Yeah, I get how academia works (and from the inside, I might say, don't
have all that much respect for it). So my question was, in a way,
rhetorical. It also reflects my personal opinion that if the research &
conclusions are sound it doesn't matter outside academia, who the author
is. Especially now when it's possible to reach a wider audience without
the interposition of said academics.

A J


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM, wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> give them credibility.
>
> This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the
> rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our
> arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no
> credentials.
>
> We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> historians.
>
> The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel
> in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must
> be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers.
> In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur
> opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
>
> The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> amateur research.
>
> So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
>
> Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find
> Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found
> him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they
> step outside the safe box.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> reputable historian for that bit of history?
> >
> > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> >
> > A J
>
>
>

Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research ourselves.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.
>
> This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.
>
> We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.
>
> The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
>
> The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.
>
> So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
>
> Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> reputable historian for that bit of history?
> >
> > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> >
> > A J
>

I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics, medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification. When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor, however much research they've claimed they've done?
Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough. And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name, that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do think we need a good one to fight our corner. 


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research ourselves.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.
>
> This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.
>
> We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.
>
> The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
>
> The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.
>
> So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
>
> Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> reputable historian for that bit of history?
> >
> > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> >
> > A J
>

Yes - we have one who used to be an amateur but is now highly qualified.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics, medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification. When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor, however much research they've claimed they've done?
Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough. And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name, that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do think we need a good one to fight our corner.


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research ourselves.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.
>
> This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.
>
> We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.
>
> The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
>
> The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.
>
> So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
>
> Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> reputable historian for that bit of history?
> >
> > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> >
> > A J
>

Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
since the days of Buck & Walpole.

Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
like to see "amateurs" sold short.

A J

P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
wrong foot.


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> however much research they've claimed they've done?
> Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> think we need a good one to fight our corner.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> Brief)
>
>
>
>
> Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> ourselves.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc"
> <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> give them credibility.
> >
> > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> no credentials.
> >
> > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> historians.
> >
> > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> >
> > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> amateur research.
> >
> > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> >
> > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> they step outside the safe box.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > >
> > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> someone
> > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > >
> > > A J
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I would imagine you are talking about JAH Stephen?

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes - we have one who used to be an amateur but is now highly qualified.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 8:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics, medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification. When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor, however much research they've claimed they've done?
> Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough. And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name, that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do think we need a good one to fight our corner.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research ourselves.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.
> >
> > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.
> >
> > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.
> >
> > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> >
> > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.
> >
> > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> >
> > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > >
> > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > >
> > > A J
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh yes!
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



I would imagine you are talking about JAH Stephen?

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes - we have one who used to be an amateur but is now highly qualified.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 8:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics, medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification. When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor, however much research they've claimed they've done?
> Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough. And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name, that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do think we need a good one to fight our corner.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research ourselves.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.
> >
> > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.
> >
> > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.
> >
> > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> >
> > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.
> >
> > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> >
> > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > >
> > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > >
> > > A J
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think he would definitely qualify as an expert. What about Phillipa????

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 3:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



Oh yes!
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

I would imagine you are talking about JAH Stephen?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes - we have one who used to be an amateur but is now highly qualified.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 8:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics, medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification. When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor, however much research they've claimed they've done?
> Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough. And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name, that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do think we need a good one to fight our corner.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research ourselves.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.
> >
> > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.
> >
> > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.
> >
> > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> >
> > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.
> >
> > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> >
> > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > >
> > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > >
> > > A J
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
dues-paying is required for many disciplines.  But the corollary seems to
be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
wasting our time & energy.  Which is where the argument has been stuck
since the days of Buck & Walpole.

Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
Believe me, I've done that & understand it.  But I've also had the
experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
like to see "amateurs" sold short.

A J

P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation.  We need new labels that
somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
wrong foot.


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> however much research they've claimed they've done?
> Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> think we need a good one to fight our corner.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> Brief)
>
>
>
>
> Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> ourselves.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc"
> <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> give them credibility.
> >
> > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> no credentials.
> >
> > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> historians.
> >
> > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> >
> > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> amateur research.
> >
> > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> >
> > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> they step outside the safe box.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > >
> > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> someone
> > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > >
> > > A J
> >
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I'd echo that; his 'thesis' is his books.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 21:57
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

Oh yes!
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

I would imagine you are talking about JAH Stephen?

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes - we have one who used to be an amateur but is now highly qualified.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 8:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics, medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification. When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor, however much research they've claimed they've done?
> Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough. And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name, that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do think we need a good one to fight our corner.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research ourselves.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.
> >
> > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.
> >
> > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.
> >
> > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> >
> > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.
> >
> > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> >
> > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > >
> > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > >
> > > A J
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

His actual thesis remains unpublished.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



I'd echo that; his 'thesis' is his books.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 21:57
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



Oh yes!
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

I would imagine you are talking about JAH Stephen?

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes - we have one who used to be an amateur but is now highly qualified.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 8:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics, medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification. When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor, however much research they've claimed they've done?
> Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough. And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name, that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do think we need a good one to fight our corner.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research ourselves.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.
> >
> > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.
> >
> > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.
> >
> > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> >
> > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.
> >
> > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> >
> > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > >
> > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > >
> > > A J
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines.  But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy.  Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it.  But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation.  We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Elaine, do you teach at a  grammar or a public school?  The reason I'm asking is that all the state comprehensives I know of do indeed seem to only do 20th century history at GCSE. 
 
Even when I was at school - a girls' grammar  in the1970s we didn't study the medival period, I had to find Richard for myself.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 
Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines.  But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy.  Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it.  But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation.  We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I only found Richard in college..... But that was a long time ago. I doubt that even colleges teach history like they used to. My oldest grandchildren, both with Masters Degrees, have no grasp of grammar..... Another thing lost. Neither were history or English majors. It would be interesting to know what is taught.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:35 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Elaine, do you teach at a grammar or a public school? The reason I'm asking is that all the state comprehensives I know of do indeed seem to only do 20th century history at GCSE.

Even when I was at school - a girls' grammar in the1970s we didn't study the medival period, I had to find Richard for myself.

Liz

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)


Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

It is worth chesking to see whether his thesis has been put online?. Most universities upload disertations these days; they can be accessed if you are signed up.
Elaine

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> His actual thesis remains unpublished.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> I'd echo that; his 'thesis' is his books.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 21:57
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> Oh yes!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 9:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> I would imagine you are talking about JAH Stephen?
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes - we have one who used to be an amateur but is now highly qualified.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 8:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics, medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification. When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor, however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough. And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name, that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research ourselves.
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs. Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods, amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it, to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore, someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Liz
I teach at a FE college
Elaine

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I only found Richard in college..... But that was a long time ago. I doubt that even colleges teach history like they used to. My oldest grandchildren, both with Masters Degrees, have no grasp of grammar..... Another thing lost. Neither were history or English majors. It would be interesting to know what is taught.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:35 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Elaine, do you teach at a grammar or a public school? The reason I'm asking is that all the state comprehensives I know of do indeed seem to only do 20th century history at GCSE.
>
> Even when I was at school - a girls' grammar in the1970s we didn't study the medival period, I had to find Richard for myself.
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
> Hilary
> I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> > I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> > And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> > Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
> >
> > Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> > dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
> > be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> > his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> > wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
> > since the days of Buck & Walpole.
> >
> > Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> > Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
> > experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> > like to see "amateurs" sold short.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> > that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
> > somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> > wrong foot.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > > Brief)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > > ourselves.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc"
> > > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > > give them credibility.
> > > >
> > > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > > no credentials.
> > > >
> > > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > > historians.
> > > >
> > > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > > >
> > > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > > amateur research.
> > > >
> > > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > > >
> > > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > > they step outside the safe box.
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > > >
> > > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > > someone
> > > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Was that at a state school? I do agree there are some students who would prefer earlier periods, but overall it's quite difficult to achieve relevance in large multicultural urban areas where world history, rather than English history, has a greater relevance. Like you though, I am hopeful, and perhaps some inner-city educationalists will embrace a wider syllabus? If not, then the chance is at university level and that is where my hopes really lie - or with the oft-neglected mature students.
 

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines.  But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy.  Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it.  But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation.  We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Indeed - and we didn't even go beyond 1918, so my knowledge of WWII is pretty poor. Incidentally, my teacher (a staunch Ricardian) didn't like Cromwell so we missed out the whole seventeenth century, even Charles II.


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 20:35
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)


 

Elaine, do you teach at a  grammar or a public school?  The reason I'm asking is that all the state comprehensives I know of do indeed seem to only do 20th century history at GCSE. 
 
Even when I was at school - a girls' grammar  in the1970s we didn't study the medival period, I had to find Richard for myself.
 
Liz

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 
Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines.  But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy.  Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it.  But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation.  We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Now I understand!  Embrace the adults, they will be our history future - says she who taught social history (part-time), but not just the grimy nineteenth century, the fifteenth century towns! Lucky you to get to do Richard.



________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 20:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

Liz
I teach at a FE college
Elaine

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I only found Richard in college..... But that was a long time ago. I doubt that even colleges teach history like they used to. My oldest grandchildren, both with Masters Degrees, have no grasp of grammar..... Another thing lost. Neither were history or English majors. It would be interesting to know what is taught.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:35 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Elaine, do you teach at a grammar or a public school? The reason I'm asking is that all the state comprehensives I know of do indeed seem to only do 20th century history at GCSE.
>
> Even when I was at school - a girls' grammar in the1970s we didn't study the medival period, I had to find Richard for myself.
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
> Hilary
> I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> > I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> > And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> > Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
> >
> > Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> > dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
> > be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> > his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> > wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
> > since the days of Buck & Walpole.
> >
> > Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> > Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
> > experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> > like to see "amateurs" sold short.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> > that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
> > somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> > wrong foot.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > > Brief)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > > ourselves.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc"
> > > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > > give them credibility.
> > > >
> > > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > > no credentials.
> > > >
> > > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > > historians.
> > > >
> > > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > > >
> > > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > > amateur research.
> > > >
> > > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > > >
> > > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > > they step outside the safe box.
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > > >
> > > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > > someone
> > > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh that's interesting - and hopeful!



________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 20:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 
Liz
I teach at a FE college
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I only found Richard in college..... But that was a long time ago. I doubt that even colleges teach history like they used to. My oldest grandchildren, both with Masters Degrees, have no grasp of grammar..... Another thing lost. Neither were history or English majors. It would be interesting to know what is taught.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:35 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Elaine, do you teach at a grammar or a public school? The reason I'm asking is that all the state comprehensives I know of do indeed seem to only do 20th century history at GCSE.
>
> Even when I was at school - a girls' grammar in the1970s we didn't study the medival period, I had to find Richard for myself.
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
> Hilary
> I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> > I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> > And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> > Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
> >
> > Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> > dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
> > be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> > his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> > wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
> > since the days of Buck & Walpole.
> >
> > Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> > Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
> > experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> > like to see "amateurs" sold short.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> > that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
> > somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> > wrong foot.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > > Brief)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > > ourselves.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "wednesday_mc"
> > > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > > give them credibility.
> > > >
> > > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > > no credentials.
> > > >
> > > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > > historians.
> > > >
> > > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > > >
> > > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > > amateur research.
> > > >
> > > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > > >
> > > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > > they step outside the safe box.
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > > >
> > > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > > someone
> > > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The trouble is I think a lot of kids are put off history today, I'm not sure if it's the way it's taught or the period they study but many of them don't even get as far as GCSE stage, much less past that.  My niece did it and absolutely loathed the 20th C syllabus.  She lives in an English county town which is not really  multi cultural but it seems to be what is done in state comprehensives because they consider our history  to be "elitist" or irrelevant.    If I lived in France I'd expect to learn French history (and no doubt would!)



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:04
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 
Was that at a state school? I do agree there are some students who would prefer earlier periods, but overall it's quite difficult to achieve relevance in large multicultural urban areas where world history, rather than English history, has a greater relevance. Like you though, I am hopeful, and perhaps some inner-city educationalists will embrace a wider syllabus? If not, then the chance is at university level and that is where my hopes really lie - or with the oft-neglected mature students.
 

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines.  But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy.  Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it.  But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation.  We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

We didn't go past 1914 and that was at A level.  O level was British history but nothing early -  I remember The Corn Laws, South Sea Bubble, Palmerston, Peel, Disraeli etc.  A level was American history post Revolution to 1914 and  European History from 1500 to 1745.
 


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:09
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 
Indeed - and we didn't even go beyond 1918, so my knowledge of WWII is pretty poor. Incidentally, my teacher (a staunch Ricardian) didn't like Cromwell so we missed out the whole seventeenth century, even Charles II.


________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 20:35
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)


 

Elaine, do you teach at a  grammar or a public school?  The reason I'm asking is that all the state comprehensives I know of do indeed seem to only do 20th century history at GCSE. 
 
Even when I was at school - a girls' grammar  in the1970s we didn't study the medival period, I had to find Richard for myself.
 
Liz

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 
Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines.  But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy.  Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it.  But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation.  We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

That's it exactly. The 'old' grammar schools taught the traditional syllabus, I think some still do, but even then with an emphasis on social history (which I think comes to you later, says she who chose to specialise in it, but later, and with a slightly different slant). The 20th century/economic history must be very off-putting for the young; where's the imagination, the dreams, the flair?
There's supposedly a move back to 'English' history, but I've yet to see it. Oh how I wish we valued our history like the French - every village has a sign pointing to its special church. Perhaps that's why I love France?


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:21
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)


 

The trouble is I think a lot of kids are put off history today, I'm not sure if it's the way it's taught or the period they study but many of them don't even get as far as GCSE stage, much less past that.  My niece did it and absolutely loathed the 20th C syllabus.  She lives in an English county town which is not really  multi cultural but it seems to be what is done in state comprehensives because they consider our history  to be "elitist" or irrelevant.    If I lived in France I'd expect to learn French history (and no doubt would!)

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:04
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 
Was that at a state school? I do agree there are some students who would prefer earlier periods, but overall it's quite difficult to achieve relevance in large multicultural urban areas where world history, rather than English history, has a greater relevance. Like you though, I am hopeful, and perhaps some inner-city educationalists will embrace a wider syllabus? If not, then the chance is at university level and that is where my hopes really lie - or with the oft-neglected mature students.
 

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines.  But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy.  Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it.  But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation.  We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

And on the subject of English History&&.Dame Thatcher, what a loss. She was quite a gal!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:42 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



That's it exactly. The 'old' grammar schools taught the traditional syllabus, I think some still do, but even then with an emphasis on social history (which I think comes to you later, says she who chose to specialise in it, but later, and with a slightly different slant). The 20th century/economic history must be very off-putting for the young; where's the imagination, the dreams, the flair?
There's supposedly a move back to 'English' history, but I've yet to see it. Oh how I wish we valued our history like the French - every village has a sign pointing to its special church. Perhaps that's why I love France?


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:21
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)




The trouble is I think a lot of kids are put off history today, I'm not sure if it's the way it's taught or the period they study but many of them don't even get as far as GCSE stage, much less past that. My niece did it and absolutely loathed the 20th C syllabus. She lives in an English county town which is not really multi cultural but it seems to be what is done in state comprehensives because they consider our history to be "elitist" or irrelevant. If I lived in France I'd expect to learn French history (and no doubt would!)

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:04
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)


Was that at a state school? I do agree there are some students who would prefer earlier periods, but overall it's quite difficult to achieve relevance in large multicultural urban areas where world history, rather than English history, has a greater relevance. Like you though, I am hopeful, and perhaps some inner-city educationalists will embrace a wider syllabus? If not, then the chance is at university level and that is where my hopes really lie - or with the oft-neglected mature students.


________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard@...>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Hear, hear. A great lady.

From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:58 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

And on the subject of English History&&.Dame Thatcher, what a loss. She was quite a gal!

There can be no 'still' about it. Everything changed in the late 80s
with the arrival of the GCSE. I don't see where a 'traditional
syllabus' can have survived, though it may have returned with the
adoption of the International Baccalaureate in some public schools,
which I believe is filtering through to some areas of state education.

My elder daughter covered the Crusades in her A-level course - there
was enough interest at her school for there to be two discrete history
groups and she went for medieval/early modern; my younger, at a
different school, did the opening up of the American West in Y9,
before the GCSE courses start. She didn't do GCSE history.

Best wishes
Christine

Quoting Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>:

> That's it exactly. The 'old' grammar schools taught the traditional
> syllabus, I think some still do, but even then with an emphasis on
> social history (which I think comes to you later, says she who chose
> to specialise in it, but later, and with a slightly different
> slant). The 20th century/economic history must be very off-putting
> for the young; where's the imagination, the dreams, the flair?
> There's supposedly a move back to 'English' history, but I've yet to
> see it. Oh how I wish we valued our history like the French - every
> village has a sign pointing to its special church. Perhaps that's
> why I love France?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: ""
> <>
> Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:21
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was
> Richard III Brief)
>
>
>  
>
> The trouble is I think a lot of kids are put off history today, I'm
> not sure if it's the way it's taught or the period they study but
> many of them don't even get as far as GCSE stage, much less past
> that.  My niece did it and absolutely loathed the 20th C syllabus. 
> She lives in an English county town which is not really  multi
> cultural but it seems to be what is done in state comprehensives
> because they consider our history  to be "elitist" or irrelevant.   
> If I lived in France I'd expect to learn French history (and no
> doubt would!)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:04
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was
> Richard III Brief)
>
>  
> Was that at a state school? I do agree there are some students who
> would prefer earlier periods, but overall it's quite difficult to
> achieve relevance in large multicultural urban areas where world
> history, rather than English history, has a greater relevance. Like
> you though, I am hopeful, and perhaps some inner-city
> educationalists will embrace a wider syllabus? If not, then the
> chance is at university level and that is where my hopes really lie
> - or with the oft-neglected mature students.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>  
>
> Hilary
> I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was
> Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and
> Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler
> and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There
> are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given
> the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies
> and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at
> AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be
> even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
> Elaine
>
>

Yep and one who's likely to be as controversial for centuries.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:58
Subject: RE: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

 

And on the subject of English History&&.Dame Thatcher, what a loss. She was quite a gal!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:42 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



That's it exactly. The 'old' grammar schools taught the traditional syllabus, I think some still do, but even then with an emphasis on social history (which I think comes to you later, says she who chose to specialise in it, but later, and with a slightly different slant). The 20th century/economic history must be very off-putting for the young; where's the imagination, the dreams, the flair?
There's supposedly a move back to 'English' history, but I've yet to see it. Oh how I wish we valued our history like the French - every village has a sign pointing to its special church. Perhaps that's why I love France?


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:21
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)




The trouble is I think a lot of kids are put off history today, I'm not sure if it's the way it's taught or the period they study but many of them don't even get as far as GCSE stage, much less past that. My niece did it and absolutely loathed the 20th C syllabus. She lives in an English county town which is not really multi cultural but it seems to be what is done in state comprehensives because they consider our history to be "elitist" or irrelevant. If I lived in France I'd expect to learn French history (and no doubt would!)

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:04
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)


Was that at a state school? I do agree there are some students who would prefer earlier periods, but overall it's quite difficult to achieve relevance in large multicultural urban areas where world history, rather than English history, has a greater relevance. Like you though, I am hopeful, and perhaps some inner-city educationalists will embrace a wider syllabus? If not, then the chance is at university level and that is where my hopes really lie - or with the oft-neglected mature students.


________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard@...>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

....... and who, when the calendar change is taken into account, had the same birthday as Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



Yep and one who's likely to be as controversial for centuries.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:58
Subject: RE: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



And on the subject of English History&&.Dame Thatcher, what a loss. She was quite a gal!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:42 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

That's it exactly. The 'old' grammar schools taught the traditional syllabus, I think some still do, but even then with an emphasis on social history (which I think comes to you later, says she who chose to specialise in it, but later, and with a slightly different slant). The 20th century/economic history must be very off-putting for the young; where's the imagination, the dreams, the flair?
There's supposedly a move back to 'English' history, but I've yet to see it. Oh how I wish we valued our history like the French - every village has a sign pointing to its special church. Perhaps that's why I love France?

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:21
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

The trouble is I think a lot of kids are put off history today, I'm not sure if it's the way it's taught or the period they study but many of them don't even get as far as GCSE stage, much less past that. My niece did it and absolutely loathed the 20th C syllabus. She lives in an English county town which is not really multi cultural but it seems to be what is done in state comprehensives because they consider our history to be "elitist" or irrelevant. If I lived in France I'd expect to learn French history (and no doubt would!)

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:04
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

Was that at a state school? I do agree there are some students who would prefer earlier periods, but overall it's quite difficult to achieve relevance in large multicultural urban areas where world history, rather than English history, has a greater relevance. Like you though, I am hopeful, and perhaps some inner-city educationalists will embrace a wider syllabus? If not, then the chance is at university level and that is where my hopes really lie - or with the oft-neglected mature students.

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard@...>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Yes Stephen what a coincidence.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ....... and who, when the calendar change is taken into account, had the same birthday as Richard.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 10:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> Yep and one who's likely to be as controversial for centuries.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:58
> Subject: RE: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
>
>
> And on the subject of “English” History…….Dame Thatcher, what a loss. She was quite a gal!
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:42 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> That's it exactly. The 'old' grammar schools taught the traditional syllabus, I think some still do, but even then with an emphasis on social history (which I think comes to you later, says she who chose to specialise in it, but later, and with a slightly different slant). The 20th century/economic history must be very off-putting for the young; where's the imagination, the dreams, the flair?
> There's supposedly a move back to 'English' history, but I've yet to see it. Oh how I wish we valued our history like the French - every village has a sign pointing to its special church. Perhaps that's why I love France?
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:21
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> The trouble is I think a lot of kids are put off history today, I'm not sure if it's the way it's taught or the period they study but many of them don't even get as far as GCSE stage, much less past that. My niece did it and absolutely loathed the 20th C syllabus. She lives in an English county town which is not really multi cultural but it seems to be what is done in state comprehensives because they consider our history to be "elitist" or irrelevant. If I lived in France I'd expect to learn French history (and no doubt would!)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:04
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Was that at a state school? I do agree there are some students who would prefer earlier periods, but overall it's quite difficult to achieve relevance in large multicultural urban areas where world history, rather than English history, has a greater relevance. Like you though, I am hopeful, and perhaps some inner-city educationalists will embrace a wider syllabus? If not, then the chance is at university level and that is where my hopes really lie - or with the oft-neglected mature students.
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
> Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Hilary
> I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@<mailto:hjnatdat@>> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> > I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> > And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@<mailto:ajhibbard@>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> > Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
> >
> > Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> > dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
> > be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> > his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> > wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
> > since the days of Buck & Walpole.
> >
> > Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> > Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
> > experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> > like to see "amateurs" sold short.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> > that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
> > somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> > wrong foot.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@<mailto:hjnatdat@>> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@<mailto:maryfriend@>>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > > Brief)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > > ourselves.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> > > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > > give them credibility.
> > > >
> > > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > > no credentials.
> > > >
> > > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > > historians.
> > > >
> > > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > > >
> > > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > > amateur research.
> > > >
> > > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > > >
> > > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > > they step outside the safe box.
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > > >
> > > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > > someone
> > > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Regardless of politics I salute her. Like Richard she loved her country.  



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 20:30
Subject: Re: Dame Thatcher


 

Hear, hear. A great lady.

From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:58 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

And on the subject of English History&&.Dame Thatcher, what a loss. She was quite a gal!

Oh yes, I suppose all pivotal people are subject to controversy.
And, on that vein, a letter on page 4 titled Tudor Tributes from Bruce Watson. He is pejorative and mentions the tomb commissioned by Henry VIII paid for the construction of an alabaster tomb, complete with a complimentary epitaph, which "accepts Richard's title as king and does not describe his as a usurper. In fact, it pays tribute to his bravery as a soldier".....
YUCK.....

On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:21 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Yep and one who's likely to be as controversial for centuries.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:58
Subject: RE: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)



And on the subject of ýEnglishý Historyýý.Dame Thatcher, what a loss. She was quite a gal!

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:42 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

That's it exactly. The 'old' grammar schools taught the traditional syllabus, I think some still do, but even then with an emphasis on social history (which I think comes to you later, says she who chose to specialise in it, but later, and with a slightly different slant). The 20th century/economic history must be very off-putting for the young; where's the imagination, the dreams, the flair?
There's supposedly a move back to 'English' history, but I've yet to see it. Oh how I wish we valued our history like the French - every village has a sign pointing to its special church. Perhaps that's why I love France?

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com><mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>>
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013, 19:21
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

The trouble is I think a lot of kids are put off history today, I'm not sure if it's the way it's taught or the period they study but many of them don't even get as far as GCSE stage, much less past that. My niece did it and absolutely loathed the 20th C syllabus. She lives in an English county town which is not really multi cultural but it seems to be what is done in state comprehensives because they consider our history to be "elitist" or irrelevant. If I lived in France I'd expect to learn French history (and no doubt would!)

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 21:04
Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

Was that at a state school? I do agree there are some students who would prefer earlier periods, but overall it's quite difficult to achieve relevance in large multicultural urban areas where world history, rather than English history, has a greater relevance. Like you though, I am hopeful, and perhaps some inner-city educationalists will embrace a wider syllabus? If not, then the chance is at university level and that is where my hopes really lie - or with the oft-neglected mature students.

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 19:59
Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)

Hilary
I recently taught GCSE Hitory in the Medieval period. The title was Power and Control and covered John, Edward I, Owain Glyndwr and Henry V. So not all exam syllabus is devoted to the Rise of Hitler and the Nazis or social conditions in the nineteenth-century. There are students who prefer the earlier period but have not been given the opportunity before. Referring to your point on medieval studies and/or Ricardian studies at post 16, I teach the War of the Roses at AS level, which includes Richard's reign. Hopefully, there will be even more interest in the future following the recent developments.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> Yes I do get your point. Perhaps one issue has been that until very recently Ricardian studies and medieval studies have been very much a niche area. This hasn't been helped by no longer being taught in schools until at least post 16. In fact here in the UK history has veered away from the 'great men', 1066 and all that, to much more sweeping multicultural world and social history.
> I'm optimistic that that could change with the Richard find and that at university level we could get more people interested in doing postgraduate studies, now that the area has become, dare I say, more trendy. I know things shouldn't have to be trendy, but it's surprising how Harry Potter led to a revival in classics.
> And I do indeed agree with your PS. The sooner we get away from being called revisionists and are called researchers instead the better. You don't have to be an academic to be a researcher or a seeker of truth, you just need to produce the quality of work that convinces the 'academics'. And some of us already have.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard@...>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 20:58
> Subject: Re: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III Brief)
>
> Well, I hear what you're saying & don't disagree that a certain amount of
> dues-paying is required for many disciplines. But the corollary seems to
> be if no credible historians believe the "revisionist" views of Richard &
> his actions, then the "revisionist" views cannot be correct, & we're all
> wasting our time & energy. Which is where the argument has been stuck
> since the days of Buck & Walpole.
>
> Or that the only way to be credible is to go through the dues paying.
> Believe me, I've done that & understand it. But I've also had the
> experience of building credibility on the merits of the evidence, & don't
> like to see "amateurs" sold short.
>
> A J
>
> P S - I'm also not a fan of calling ourselves "revisionists" or the idea
> that we're "rehabilitating" Richard's reputation. We need new labels that
> somehow identify the "traditionalists" as the ones who went off on the
> wrong foot.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I do think you're being hard on historians here, and particularly Ian
> > Mortimer, whose level of research most of us could never match and he is an
> > FRSA . History is a discipline, just like psychology, physics, economics,
> > medicine, you name it and if you want to be respected and listened to out
> > there then the first thing you need to do is get a relevant qualification.
> > When you've done that you can start arguing with the big boys; if you don't
> > they'll quite rightly slap you down. Would you go to an unqualified doctor,
> > however much research they've claimed they've done?
> > Yes there is a place for the amateur, but their work will be evaluated by
> > the big boys, could even be used, if one of the big boys is humble enough.
> > And of course the top eschelons of academia will argue to make their name,
> > that's what it's all about; just like politics. It should be healthy.
> > By the way, before anyone slaps me down, I'm not an academic, but I do
> > think we need a good one to fight our corner.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 18:29
> > Subject: Re: Ian Mortimer (was Richard III
> > Brief)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely interesting post Weds. When you say that it would take courage
> > to do it because they know that their peers will crucify them if the
> > research and arguments are not solid, what happened when people like Hicks
> > and Pollard maintained that More was telling it as it was and in the case
> > of Hicks that Richard's marriage was invalid? It didn't take long for Marie
> > to blow Hicks marriage theory out of the water, so is it the case that they
> > would not consider Marie's research because she was not a so called
> > "expert", despite having cited sources which they could check? Quite
> > frankly that is disgusting and smacks of jobs for the boys and girls and no
> > one else is allowed even though we are too idle to do the research
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc"
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone who's peddling bogus history is considered a reputable
> > historian, it's because of his/her professional credentials (e.g., a
> > published, tenured professor at a respectable university with a doctoral
> > degree in history). That person does not have to specialize in late
> > medieval history. It's the professional credentials as an historian that
> > give them credibility.
> > >
> > > This makes the person an "expert" respected in his/her field. It makes
> > the rest of us -- no matter the quality of our research or the strength of
> > our arguments -- regarded as amateurs with no credibility because we have
> > no credentials.
> > >
> > > We need a reputable Ricardian historian because reputable non-Ricardian
> > historians will ignore or dismiss the research and arguments of amateurs.
> > Also, the reputable Ricardian historian could publish papers in historical
> > journals and pen books refuting the research of the non-Ricardian
> > historians.
> > >
> > > The most recent research, analysis and publications always stand as
> > gospel in the world of academia. The rules of the game say that those works
> > must be by professionals so that peer can evaluate peer. Amateurs are not
> > peers. In the world of academia where professional historians are as gods,
> > amateur opinions weigh as much as sunlight.
> > >
> > > The arguments an amateur historian (such as Jeremy Potter) are valid and
> > convincing to a Ricardian. But a professional historian with a recognized
> > reputation is *required by the rules of his profession* to ignore all
> > amateur research.
> > >
> > > So yes, if Richard's reputation is ever to be wrested away from the
> > Tudorian propaganda, a professional, credentialed Ricardian historian will
> > at some point have to leap off the academic cliff and basically destroy the
> > research and opinion of the past 500+ years. If one did this, others would
> > follow. But the first one to do it would have to have the stones to do it,
> > to step outside the "safe" box and know that his/her peers will absolutely
> > crucify him or her if the research and arguments are not solid.
> > >
> > > Which is also why it took the amateurs (Philippa and Ashdown-Hill) to
> > find Richard when the professionals could have done the same research and
> > found him themselves. The latter know they can lose face and be burned if
> > they step outside the safe box.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, please excuse me if I sound somewhat combative (it's been a long
> > > week) - but why do we consider someone who's peddling bogus history a
> > > reputable historian for that bit of history?
> > > >
> > > > And why do we need a reputable historian in the first place? Are we
> > > admitting that the arguments we have available regarding Richard are not,
> > > in and of themselves, sufficiently convincing? and that therefore,
> > someone
> > > with a recognized reputation is required to vouch for him?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>