Richard and Anne

Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.

Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:

> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
>
>

I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
all the odds.
And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
Shakespeare after Hamlet.
That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
attack Richard with so much anger?
Paul


On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
> Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
>> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I was thinking that, because as you know, I've bumped into the same thing. You see Shakespeare was clever enough to make out that his Richard decided to make himself a villain, but when you think about it I can't think of any born villains, or those who plot to become villains. Real people become villains by mistake, usually because of grandiose ambitions or occasionally because they're barking mad. So if you want to write about a real Richard (who wasn't a villain anyway) or someone like Morton (who arguably became one) you have to show all the sides to their character and what makes them tick. This age which is used to Holywood action and goodies and baddies a la Batman, doesn't have the patience for that; or that's what TV producers, publishers etc would have us believe. I think they're wrong and people actually like to get their teeth into something - but try and convince them.
 
Sorry! I just needed a break from the Cheddars. Cheers H.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2013, 8:17
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne


 

I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
all the odds.
And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
Shakespeare after Hamlet.
That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
attack Richard with so much anger?
Paul

On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
> Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Richard Eyre recently said (probably slightly mischievously) that Shakespeare was the best thing that ever happened to Richard.

I can actually see a truth in that as many people come to the historical character because the fictional one is so powerful.  Without Shakespeare, you'd still have the More calumny - which would probably be even more entrenched because there'd be fewer people interested in examining the life of a little-known and briefly reigning monarch.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2013, 10:22
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne



 
I was thinking that, because as you know, I've bumped into the same thing. You see Shakespeare was clever enough to make out that his Richard decided to make himself a villain, but when you think about it I can't think of any born villains, or those who plot to become villains. Real people become villains by mistake, usually because of grandiose ambitions or occasionally because they're barking mad. So if you want to write about a real Richard (who wasn't a villain anyway) or someone like Morton (who arguably became one) you have to show all the sides to their character and what makes them tick. This age which is used to Holywood action and goodies and baddies a la Batman, doesn't have the patience for that; or that's what TV producers, publishers etc would have us believe. I think they're wrong and people actually like to get their teeth into something - but try and convince them.
 
Sorry! I just needed a break from the Cheddars. Cheers H.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2013, 8:17
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne


 

I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
all the odds.
And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
Shakespeare after Hamlet.
That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
attack Richard with so much anger?
Paul

On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
> Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I have wondered about that as well. Perhaps Vlad the Impale has his loyal followers, and just do not know about them. But 500+ years of vilification to too much. It may take us a long time to change perceptions...... I really haven't a clue.



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne



I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
all the odds.
And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
Shakespeare after Hamlet.
That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
attack Richard with so much anger?
Paul

On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
> Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...<mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com>> wrote:
>
>> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

"I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as if he
has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been so
influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone asking
one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the girl
answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the gentleman and the
usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then most people think of
Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he was a rather unpleasant man
who just happened to beat the French against all the odds.
And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is part
of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that was not
so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of a lesser
writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a hold on the
nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be so, as it has one
of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in Shakespeare after
Hamlet.
That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a genius,
who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.But that
is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and attack
Richard with so much anger?"

Doug here:
Because those people *aren't* being taught the historical facts. What
they're being taught is a "history" based on extremely nationalistic, and
Tudor-centric, propaganda designed to show how great a blessing to England
the Tudors were?
That propaganda-as-history was then bolstered by works by quite possibly the
greatest playwright ever and it's all inculculated starting at an early age.
There's a valid reason it was claimed the Jesuits said "Give me a child
before he's six and we'll have him the rest of his life." Studies have shown
that what we learn at an early age, regardless of its' validity, becomes
such an integral part of what we consider ourselves to be that doubting or
challenging that teaching can cause the person to react as if being
personally attacked. Hence the attitudes and reactions.
Then finish this all off with the realization that by the time someone might
start having doubts, that person is faced with the daunting task of going
against, almost literally, *every* respected "historian" since 1550 *and*
what "everybody knows is true" ("If it's on the internet, it *has* to be
true" - satiric tv advert here in the States) and the greater wonder is
that there's any Ricardians at all!
Well, in my opinion, anyway.
Doug

Agree entirely with what you say about Shakespeare. Your other post about starting at Tewkesbury and then having to go back to Richard's birth is also spot on. I think the trouble with traditionalists they just focus on 1483 - 1485 but that's no good with Richard you have to tell the whole story. So many things I have read don't even mention Stillington, well Richard was always plotting to get his hands on the throne wasn't he? Ralph Griffiths'"The Making of a Tudor Dynasty" springs to mind.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
> why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
> if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
> so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
> production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
> asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
> girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
> gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
> most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
> was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
> all the odds.
> And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
> part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
> was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
> a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
> hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
> so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
> Shakespeare after Hamlet.
> That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
> genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
> But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
> attack Richard with so much anger?
> Paul
>
>
> On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
> > Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

It occurs to me that one weapon serious researchers (trying to avoid the
Ricardian or revisionist label) haven't used as a "weapon" is humor. Those
of you familiar with the book *Freakonomics* may recall the author's
findings that a key element in the diminishing (if not entire demise) of
the Ku Klux Klan was it's being held up to ridicule. For those of you who
don't know, this is a book by an economist, reporting his statistical
analyses of social issues with some of the hidden explanations about how
things work.

Unfortunately I, myself, seem to have no sense of humor whatsoever
regarding Richard & his wrongs. Ishita - perhaps you do & can consider
deploying it in Richard's defense.

A J


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the
> Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's
> illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed
> Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that
> lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of
> allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard
> a monster is too sad.
> Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in
> their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> > Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site
> for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of
> R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So
> painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote
> historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship,
> only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between
> these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with
> a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He
> seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex.
> We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

There is, however, always hope: remember that two of the greatest
religious skeptics of the eighteenth century, Diderot and Voltaire, were
both educated by Jesuits.

Maria
ejbronte@...


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> "I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
> why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as if
> he
> has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been so
> influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
> production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
> asking
> one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the girl
> answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the gentleman and
> the
> usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then most people think of
> Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he was a rather unpleasant
> man
> who just happened to beat the French against all the odds.
> And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is part
> of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that was not
> so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of a lesser
> writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a hold on the
> nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be so, as it has
> one
> of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in Shakespeare after
> Hamlet.
> That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a genius,
> who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.But
> that
> is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and attack
> Richard with so much anger?"
>
> Doug here:
> Because those people *aren't* being taught the historical facts. What
> they're being taught is a "history" based on extremely nationalistic, and
> Tudor-centric, propaganda designed to show how great a blessing to England
> the Tudors were?
> That propaganda-as-history was then bolstered by works by quite possibly
> the
> greatest playwright ever and it's all inculculated starting at an early
> age.
> There's a valid reason it was claimed the Jesuits said "Give me a child
> before he's six and we'll have him the rest of his life." Studies have
> shown
> that what we learn at an early age, regardless of its' validity, becomes
> such an integral part of what we consider ourselves to be that doubting or
> challenging that teaching can cause the person to react as if being
> personally attacked. Hence the attitudes and reactions.
> Then finish this all off with the realization that by the time someone
> might
> start having doubts, that person is faced with the daunting task of going
> against, almost literally, *every* respected "historian" since 1550 *and*
> what "everybody knows is true" ("If it's on the internet, it *has* to be
> true" - satiric tv advert here in the States) and the greater wonder is
> that there's any Ricardians at all!
> Well, in my opinion, anyway.
> Doug
>
>
>

I think most people (for good or ill) project things onto Richard. We have the merest sketch of his life and events, and even historians have to fill in the blanks/interpret things as they will. So there's a lot of projection going on in everyone as human beings try to define and classify everything into neat little mental folders.

It may be that people's projections onto Richard says a lot more about the person doing the projection than it does about Richard. But possible simple reasons/motivations behind those vilifying him:

* Some people love to kick another human being when they're down. If it's a King (an authority figure, someone about as high on the pyramid as he can get), that's ever so much better.

* He can't fight back, so he's a safe target. If he were standing before them, I doubt they'd have the courage to hit him -- verbally or otherwise. They'd probably (hopefully) remember that one does not even look the King in the eye, much less attack him verbally.

* It makes them feel superior.

* Because they can. (Some of the monkeys are mean.)

* They don't care about the truth, they just want to be on the "winning" side. The winner, after all, got to write history. The winner still does.

* Most people are terrified of being humiliated in public: Richard's story brings up that terror, and people shove their own back down in response to his. So their terror turns to contempt, and they lash out at him with their contempt, which is really only their masking their own fear of being humiliated.

* Shakespeare created the archetypal Evil!King; people respond and react strongly to archetypes that resonate with them. Archetypes we resonate with represent something we fear (and never want to encounter in our own lives) or something we lack (that we desperately want in our own lives). The response and reaction usually has little to do with the person symbolizing the archetype; it has everything to do with the person responding to that archetype -- so it's really not all about Richard, it's about what he symbolizes to the person attacking him. (In other words, Richard "mirrors" something inside of the person attacking him, so the person attacking is either seeing something in him that they don't like in themselves, or seeing something in him that they wish they possessed.)

* They're too lazy to research the truth, so they take the Evil!King at face value and aren't interested in going any further.

* Fallen angels and kings (again with the archetypal figures) are absolutely fascinating/hypnotic. People express their fascination in contrasting ways.

In contrast, we might ask why so many ignore the historical facts and see Richard as an absolute angel? The two extremes of despising him and loving him are opposite points on a single scale, after all...and all points in between the two extremes are there as well. The real man was somewhere in between, but the historical figure is so blurred...and it's back to projection we go.

Required disclaimer: Your opinion and mileage will vary, and that's okay. Richard can take it.

~Weds

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
.
.
.
.
> Why do so many ignore historical facts and attack Richard with so much anger?

Personally, I am bored to death trying to argue with traditionalists and their running dogs. They seem to control most of the online discussion groups. Luckily, I have about 50 books on Richard (not all pro-Richard) and can privately think my own thoughts about the man and not bother with these luddites. Although, paradoxically, I DO get annoyed with this idea that R killed Anne. And they say we live in fantasyland. Maire.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> It occurs to me that one weapon serious researchers (trying to avoid the
> Ricardian or revisionist label) haven't used as a "weapon" is humor. Those
> of you familiar with the book *Freakonomics* may recall the author's
> findings that a key element in the diminishing (if not entire demise) of
> the Ku Klux Klan was it's being held up to ridicule. For those of you who
> don't know, this is a book by an economist, reporting his statistical
> analyses of social issues with some of the hidden explanations about how
> things work.
>
> Unfortunately I, myself, seem to have no sense of humor whatsoever
> regarding Richard & his wrongs. Ishita - perhaps you do & can consider
> deploying it in Richard's defense.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the
> > Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's
> > illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed
> > Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that
> > lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of
> > allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard
> > a monster is too sad.
> > Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in
> > their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >
> > On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site
> > for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of
> > R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So
> > painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote
> > historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship,
> > only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between
> > these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with
> > a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He
> > seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex.
> > We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Paul and all, this treating of Richard and Ricardians as personal enimies is what shocks me. I went to the HT society page once and still feel bad about it but these people come in hordes at the Riii pages and if you protest then they make * you* feel like a freak........

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:17 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
> why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
> if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
> so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
> production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
> asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
> girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
> gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
> most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
> was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
> all the odds.
> And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
> part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
> was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
> a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
> hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
> so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
> Shakespeare after Hamlet.
> That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
> genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
> But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
> attack Richard with so much anger?
> Paul
>
> On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
> > Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

AJ,
I have tried and it just back fires........:/
But then it's really hard to find humor when you hear morons calling Richard and Ricardians b******!!!


Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:02 PM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> It occurs to me that one weapon serious researchers (trying to avoid the
> Ricardian or revisionist label) haven't used as a "weapon" is humor. Those
> of you familiar with the book *Freakonomics* may recall the author's
> findings that a key element in the diminishing (if not entire demise) of
> the Ku Klux Klan was it's being held up to ridicule. For those of you who
> don't know, this is a book by an economist, reporting his statistical
> analyses of social issues with some of the hidden explanations about how
> things work.
>
> Unfortunately I, myself, seem to have no sense of humor whatsoever
> regarding Richard & his wrongs. Ishita - perhaps you do & can consider
> deploying it in Richard's defense.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the
>> Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's
>> illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed
>> Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that
>> lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of
>> allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard
>> a monster is too sad.
>> Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in
>> their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site
>> for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of
>> R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So
>> painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote
>> historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship,
>> only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between
>> these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with
>> a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He
>> seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex.
>> We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I agree, Ishita. It's very hard to take and manage so that the Richard-despisers don't dominate some of these sites. On the RIII FB page someone called Richard the "serial incestor" the other week and got lots of random "likes" and a "LOL" from someone, as if it was a funny joke that could be bandied about. Too many newcomers to Ricardian matters are lurking on that FB page and reading those things and taking some of it in as 'gospel', without knowing any other background to the papal dispensation or the refutation of the "Richard/Elizabeth of York" rumour (or deputations to Portugal at that time).


--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Paul and all, this treating of Richard and Ricardians as personal enimies is what shocks me. I went to the HT society page once and still feel bad about it but these people come in hordes at the Riii pages and if you protest then they make * you* feel like a freak........
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:17 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> > I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
> > why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
> > if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
> > so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
> > production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
> > asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
> > girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
> > gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
> > most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
> > was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
> > all the odds.
> > And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
> > part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
> > was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
> > a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
> > hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
> > so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
> > Shakespeare after Hamlet.
> > That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
> > genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
> > But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
> > attack Richard with so much anger?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
> > > Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>

And they are very adamant about Richard killing Anne. You can be blue in face and still won't be able to convince them. If you really want to learn about a historical character then at least give credence to the truth. Otherwise what is the point of being in a group/ page dedicated to this person? If they have made up their mind he is this arch villain , what kind of twisted pleasure do they get to put own and insult people who really cares and really wants to learn. " Hunchback dwarf" " serial incester" or "wife killer" doesn't seem to be conducive to any kind of intellectual discussion........ Ah well. I try to stay away and then find myself in another new brawl:((

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 11, 2013, at 4:47 PM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:

> I agree, Ishita. It's very hard to take and manage so that the Richard-despisers don't dominate some of these sites. On the RIII FB page someone called Richard the "serial incestor" the other week and got lots of random "likes" and a "LOL" from someone, as if it was a funny joke that could be bandied about. Too many newcomers to Ricardian matters are lurking on that FB page and reading those things and taking some of it in as 'gospel', without knowing any other background to the papal dispensation or the refutation of the "Richard/Elizabeth of York" rumour (or deputations to Portugal at that time).
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Paul and all, this treating of Richard and Ricardians as personal enimies is what shocks me. I went to the HT society page once and still feel bad about it but these people come in hordes at the Riii pages and if you protest then they make * you* feel like a freak........
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:17 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
> > > why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
> > > if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
> > > so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
> > > production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
> > > asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
> > > girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
> > > gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
> > > most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
> > > was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
> > > all the odds.
> > > And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
> > > part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
> > > was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
> > > a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
> > > hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
> > > so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
> > > Shakespeare after Hamlet.
> > > That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
> > > genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
> > > But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
> > > attack Richard with so much anger?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
> > > > Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I am an admirer of Vlad, without whom Europe would have been over run by
the Turks and be now Muslim, and inside Romania he remains a folk hero
to this day. Mention him by his Romanian name of Vlad Tepes and any
Romanian will smile warmly.
Once again a lot of his history was written by his German enemies who,
like Tudor historians with Richard, were prone to vast exaggeration and
invention.
Then, of course, his name was pounced upon by Bram Stoker, who just
liked the sound of Vlad Drakula, which means 'of the order of the
Dragon', a bit like the Order of the Garter, only less ceremonial, and
his name became forever linked with that of the best horror character
ever invented.
As for impaling as a form of execution, remember that in England we were
hanging, drawing, and quartering.
Paul



On 11/04/2013 12:51, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I have wondered about that as well. Perhaps Vlad the Impale has his loyal followers, and just do not know about them. But 500+ years of vilification to too much. It may take us a long time to change perceptions...... I really haven't a clue.
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:17 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne
>
>
>
> I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
> why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
> if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
> so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
> production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
> asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
> girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
> gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
> most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
> was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
> all the odds.
> And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
> part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
> was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
> a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
> hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
> so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
> Shakespeare after Hamlet.
> That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
> genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
> But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
> attack Richard with so much anger?
> Paul
>
> On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>> Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
>> Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...<mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Maria Torres wrote:

"There is, however, always hope: remember that two of the greatest
religious skeptics of the eighteenth century, Diderot and Voltaire, were
both educated by Jesuits."

True, but for every Voltaire how many tens of thousands are there who
*aren't* - and never will be? The sheer number of people though, who,
literally, refuse to use their brains can be so discouraging!
Sorry to be so pessimistic, probably the weather!
Doug

wednesday_mc wrote:
"I think most people (for good or ill) project things onto Richard. We have
the merest sketch of his life and events, and even historians have to fill
in the blanks/interpret things as they will. So there's a lot of projection
going on in everyone as human beings try to define and classify everything
into neat little mental folders.
It may be that people's projections onto Richard says a lot more about the
person doing the projection than it does about Richard. But possible simple
reasons/motivations behind those vilifying him:
* Some people love to kick another human being when they're down. If it's a
King (an authority figure, someone about as high on the pyramid as he can
get), that's ever so much better.
* He can't fight back, so he's a safe target. If he were standing before
them, I doubt they'd have the courage to hit him -- verbally or otherwise.
They'd probably (hopefully) remember that one does not even look the King in
the eye, much less attack him verbally.
* It makes them feel superior.
* Because they can. (Some of the monkeys are mean.)
* They don't care about the truth, they just want to be on the "winning"
side. The winner, after all, got to write history. The winner still does.
* Most people are terrified of being humiliated in public: Richard's story
brings up that terror, and people shove their own back down in response to
his. So their terror turns to contempt, and they lash out at him with their
contempt, which is really only their masking their own fear of being
humiliated.
* Shakespeare created the archetypal Evil!King; people respond and react
strongly to archetypes that resonate with them. Archetypes we resonate with
represent something we fear (and never want to encounter in our own lives)
or something we lack (that we desperately want in our own lives). The
response and reaction usually has little to do with the person symbolizing
the archetype; it has everything to do with the person responding to that
archetype -- so it's really not all about Richard, it's about what he
symbolizes to the person attacking him. (In other words, Richard "mirrors"
something inside of the person attacking him, so the person attacking is
either seeing something in him that they don't like in themselves, or seeing
something in him that they wish they possessed.)
* They're too lazy to research the truth, so they take the Evil!King at face
value and aren't interested in going any further.
* Fallen angels and kings (again with the archetypal figures) are absolutely
fascinating/hypnotic. People express their fascination in contrasting ways.
In contrast, we might ask why so many ignore the historical facts and see
Richard as an absolute angel? The two extremes of despising him and loving
him are opposite points on a single scale, after all...and all points in
between the two extremes are there as well. The real man was somewhere in
between, but the historical figure is so blurred...and it's back to
projection we go.
Required disclaimer: Your opinion and mileage will vary, and that's okay.
Richard can take it."

Doug here:
Your first six "types" are most likely those Ish has met on her excursions
onto FB and, while it's always nice to "know your enemy (opponent might be
better)", aren't going to be affected even by a new history/biography that,
quite literally, *proves* what we "know" about Richard isn't true. Other
than ignoring them, politely of course, I really don't know what else to do.
Your numbers 6 and 8 are what I believe Shakespeare exploited so well, and
not just in his "Richard III"! The Tudor "chroniclers", perhaps
"propagandists" would be a better term, also seem to have understood this as
well.
As for number 5, I can excuse laziness about learning the facts about
Richard in the average person because it's not their job. In "historians"?
Never!
And your last point is very pertinant. There *are* people who, once they
recognize someone has been "mistreated", then become that person's blind
champions, putting them so high up on a pedestal that both the "idol" and
the champions suffer from a deprivation of reality, rather than oxygen, and
without realizing that either can be deadly.
Thank you for the time and thought spent on these excellent psychological
profiles,
Doug

And Gary Oldman was great in the part I recall. Our friend Tiptoft was good at the impaling wasn't he, and he was supposed to be one of the most learned of his age? 



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 April 2013, 13:13
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne


 

I am an admirer of Vlad, without whom Europe would have been over run by
the Turks and be now Muslim, and inside Romania he remains a folk hero
to this day. Mention him by his Romanian name of Vlad Tepes and any
Romanian will smile warmly.
Once again a lot of his history was written by his German enemies who,
like Tudor historians with Richard, were prone to vast exaggeration and
invention.
Then, of course, his name was pounced upon by Bram Stoker, who just
liked the sound of Vlad Drakula, which means 'of the order of the
Dragon', a bit like the Order of the Garter, only less ceremonial, and
his name became forever linked with that of the best horror character
ever invented.
As for impaling as a form of execution, remember that in England we were
hanging, drawing, and quartering.
Paul

On 11/04/2013 12:51, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I have wondered about that as well. Perhaps Vlad the Impale has his loyal followers, and just do not know about them. But 500+ years of vilification to too much. It may take us a long time to change perceptions...... I really haven't a clue.
>
>
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:17 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne
>
>
>
> I still never understand the way people denigrate Richard, or rather the
> why? Why do they pick on him and his defenders with such vehemence, as
> if he has done something to them personally? Has Shakespeare really been
> so influencial on people's perception? I guess so. I once came out of a
> production of the three Henry VI plays and Richard and heard someone
> asking one of the ushers if what he had seen was history. 'Oh yes' the
> girl answered, 'it's all true'. Naturally I leapt in to set the
> gentleman and the usher straight, to some very funny looks. But then
> most people think of Henry V as a hero, courtesy of the Bard, when he
> was a rather unpleasant man who just happened to beat the French against
> all the odds.
> And of course the vast majority think Shakespeare is history. That is
> part of the tragedy for Richard. Had a play been written about him that
> was not so full of dramatic leaps against the facts, and by the hand of
> a lesser writer than the genius of Stratford, it would not have such a
> hold on the nation's imagination. And of course it will continue to be
> so, as it has one of the best parts for an actor to play, the longest in
> Shakespeare after Hamlet.
> That is part of my problem in writing my Richard. I am taking on a
> genius, who wrote some of the most wonderful prose in the English language.
> But that is not the question. Why do so many ignore historical facts and
> attack Richard with so much anger?
> Paul
>
> On 11/04/2013 05:22, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>> Carol, many of us from the forum has put in numerous comments all over the Internet but to no avail. Not only it is always contended that Richard's illegitimate children were born after his marriage but also that he killed Anne. These people will not budge from their view. It is good to see that lots of people are trying to put good arguments to counter this kind of allegations but just to see a bunch of other people trying to prove Richard a monster is too sad.
>> Sometime it seems pointless to argue with people who are so adamant in their view.........But then they probably say the same about us:)
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carol Darling <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com<mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Re; their marriage: I was just reading all the info on a Facebook site for Richard, that had so many people offering commentary on the marriage of R and A. Not one said the marriage was loving or a happy union. That was So painful. I wish people who choose to comment would take the time to quote historical facts. We do. We never glorify or sugar coat this relationship, only point out the many instances of genuine respect and caring between these two. We also can't truly find instance of Richards relationship with a mistress after his marriage. Which was truly unusual for that time. He seems to be a cut above men of his time in his respect for the fairer sex. We can add that to the list of his known attributes. Carol D.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hey, Paul...you might enjoy knowing that one of Vlad's indirect male descendants (I think it's Ottomar Rodolphe Vlad Dracula Prince Kretzulesco) speaks on a song called "Mille Anni Passi Sunt" (a thousand years have passed) by the group Corvus Corax. Found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YTpjQLUwvM


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I am an admirer of Vlad, without whom Europe would have been over run by the Turks and be now Muslim, and inside Romania he remains a folk hero to this day. Mention him by his Romanian name of Vlad Tepes and any Romanian will smile warmly.