Oh dear...
Oh dear...
2013-05-23 14:04:17
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
Jonathan
Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
Jonathan
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 14:19:43
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 14:24:53
If this is an accurate representation of what Skidmore wrote, sure looks as
if he's opened the door to his next political opponent to ask the voters if
they really want someone who's so free and easy with the facts.
A J
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed
> Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
if he's opened the door to his next political opponent to ask the voters if
they really want someone who's so free and easy with the facts.
A J
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed
> Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 14:31:11
Exactly what I was going to say!
And Richard was "not" one foot shorter. they said he "could" have been "up to" one foot shorter which is not the same thing at all.
And he wasn't haemorraging support.
And - I am speechless, more or less.
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
"Exact"
And Richard was "not" one foot shorter. they said he "could" have been "up to" one foot shorter which is not the same thing at all.
And he wasn't haemorraging support.
And - I am speechless, more or less.
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
"Exact"
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 14:43:03
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 15:26:49
Hi, Jonathan and everyone
I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
(That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
Oy vey!!!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
(That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
Oy vey!!!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 15:29:13
I missed that earlier discussion. Maybe Sir Ralph was a sort of Gilles de Rais? Highly respected and honoured warrior, companion of Joan of Arc...but he had a nasty habit of killing small boys and burying them on his estates. A little something Joan's "celestial voices" remained silent upon....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 15:47:14
He has a First in History, but that doesn't necessarily make him an historian...
He's certainly published a fair amount on the Tudors - that's his comfort-zone, and probably skews his attitude to sources. Maybe the book isn't as flawed as the review suggests (didn't Hilary say she'd picked up a copy?) but, if it is, and he really subscribes to More, I find the fact that he was one of the MPs calling for a state funeral for Richard morally offensive from both the revisionist and traditionalist perspectives. Which is quite an achievement!
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:26
Subject: RE: Re: Oh dear...
Hi, Jonathan and everyone
I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
(That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
Oy vey!!!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
He's certainly published a fair amount on the Tudors - that's his comfort-zone, and probably skews his attitude to sources. Maybe the book isn't as flawed as the review suggests (didn't Hilary say she'd picked up a copy?) but, if it is, and he really subscribes to More, I find the fact that he was one of the MPs calling for a state funeral for Richard morally offensive from both the revisionist and traditionalist perspectives. Which is quite an achievement!
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:26
Subject: RE: Re: Oh dear...
Hi, Jonathan and everyone
I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
(That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
Oy vey!!!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 15:57:52
Chris Skidmore is a Tudor historian. He chaired the Richard III Society Conference in Leicester. He is a member of the Richard III Society.
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:46
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
He has a First in History, but that doesn't necessarily make him an historian...
He's certainly published a fair amount on the Tudors - that's his comfort-zone, and probably skews his attitude to sources. Maybe the book isn't as flawed as the review suggests (didn't Hilary say she'd picked up a copy?) but, if it is, and he really subscribes to More, I find the fact that he was one of the MPs calling for a state funeral for Richard morally offensive from both the revisionist and traditionalist perspectives. Which is quite an achievement!
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:26
Subject: RE: Re: Oh dear...
Hi, Jonathan and everyone
I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
(That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
Oy vey!!!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:46
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
He has a First in History, but that doesn't necessarily make him an historian...
He's certainly published a fair amount on the Tudors - that's his comfort-zone, and probably skews his attitude to sources. Maybe the book isn't as flawed as the review suggests (didn't Hilary say she'd picked up a copy?) but, if it is, and he really subscribes to More, I find the fact that he was one of the MPs calling for a state funeral for Richard morally offensive from both the revisionist and traditionalist perspectives. Which is quite an achievement!
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:26
Subject: RE: Re: Oh dear...
Hi, Jonathan and everyone
I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
(That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
Oy vey!!!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 16:10:47
I'm not surprised this book is written by a politician, frankly. The whole Guilt by Association thing is typical of politics. Did King Edward condone brutal torture, just because of Tiptoff? Or was Cecily Neville guilty along with Colingbourne?
A king known for his fairness and mercy is hardly likely to condone the barrel-of-nails treatment...though I can think of several people who actually deserved to be rolled down a nice steep hill. Maybe twice.
Judy
As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall the book). Go figure.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
A king known for his fairness and mercy is hardly likely to condone the barrel-of-nails treatment...though I can think of several people who actually deserved to be rolled down a nice steep hill. Maybe twice.
Judy
As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall the book). Go figure.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 16:27:38
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I missed that earlier discussion. Maybe Sir Ralph was a sort of Gilles de
> Rais? Highly respected and honoured warrior, companion of Joan of
> Arc...but he had a nasty habit of killing small boys and burying them on
> his estates. A little something Joan's "celestial voices" remained silent
> upon....
Assheton has the reputation of killing people by horrible means, mainly for
allowing weeds to grow in the fields. However, he and his father are
reported to have dressed in black and he had a brother who was supposedly an
alchemist, and it seems as though he has been absorbed into the story of
some sort of folkloric, mummers'-play demon figure. People were certainly
scared of him - there's a contemporary rhyme which ends "Save us from the
axe of the Tower//and from Sir Ralph de Assheton" - but this may just be
because he was a high-ranking official (constable of the north, was it?) who
had the right to order executions without trial in emergencies.
The earliest legends about him make no mention of spiked barrels or people
being killed for allowing corn-cockles to grow - they only portray him as
being rather harsh about raising taxes. There's a story which shows him in
fact behaving well by giving back the death duties which he had extracted
from a poor widow - but only after being publicly embarrassed into doing so.
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I missed that earlier discussion. Maybe Sir Ralph was a sort of Gilles de
> Rais? Highly respected and honoured warrior, companion of Joan of
> Arc...but he had a nasty habit of killing small boys and burying them on
> his estates. A little something Joan's "celestial voices" remained silent
> upon....
Assheton has the reputation of killing people by horrible means, mainly for
allowing weeds to grow in the fields. However, he and his father are
reported to have dressed in black and he had a brother who was supposedly an
alchemist, and it seems as though he has been absorbed into the story of
some sort of folkloric, mummers'-play demon figure. People were certainly
scared of him - there's a contemporary rhyme which ends "Save us from the
axe of the Tower//and from Sir Ralph de Assheton" - but this may just be
because he was a high-ranking official (constable of the north, was it?) who
had the right to order executions without trial in emergencies.
The earliest legends about him make no mention of spiked barrels or people
being killed for allowing corn-cockles to grow - they only portray him as
being rather harsh about raising taxes. There's a story which shows him in
fact behaving well by giving back the death duties which he had extracted
from a poor widow - but only after being publicly embarrassed into doing so.
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 17:36:00
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I'm not surprised this book is written by a politician, frankly. The whole
> Guilt by Association thing is typical of politics. Did King Edward condone
> brutal torture, just because of Tiptoff?
I would say, yes - he employed the guy and put him in a position to give
free reign to his mania, and it's not likely he didn't know what the man
was. Just as a farmer who knowingly continues to employ a stockman who
ill-treats his cattle is responsible for the cattle being ill-treated.
*If* Richard had knowingly employed somebody who tortured peasants to death
for fun, that would be a massive black mark against him - but the evidence
suggests that the barrel-of-nails story is a 19th C invention. A late 18th
C collection of Lancashire traditions has a whole chapter and a half on
Assheton and his father, and doesn't mention it or anything like it.
> As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie
> Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall
> the book). Go figure.
This might have something to do with the fact that Chaplin had sex with a
12-year-old girl. He wasn't precisely a paedophile, since her attraction
for him was not that she was immature but that she had precociously enormous
breasts - but he did know how young she was, and there were good reasons why
children should be warned against him.
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I'm not surprised this book is written by a politician, frankly. The whole
> Guilt by Association thing is typical of politics. Did King Edward condone
> brutal torture, just because of Tiptoff?
I would say, yes - he employed the guy and put him in a position to give
free reign to his mania, and it's not likely he didn't know what the man
was. Just as a farmer who knowingly continues to employ a stockman who
ill-treats his cattle is responsible for the cattle being ill-treated.
*If* Richard had knowingly employed somebody who tortured peasants to death
for fun, that would be a massive black mark against him - but the evidence
suggests that the barrel-of-nails story is a 19th C invention. A late 18th
C collection of Lancashire traditions has a whole chapter and a half on
Assheton and his father, and doesn't mention it or anything like it.
> As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie
> Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall
> the book). Go figure.
This might have something to do with the fact that Chaplin had sex with a
12-year-old girl. He wasn't precisely a paedophile, since her attraction
for him was not that she was immature but that she had precociously enormous
breasts - but he did know how young she was, and there were good reasons why
children should be warned against him.
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 17:36:52
Never heard that before? I definitely won't be buying it.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
> >
> > Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
> >
> > And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
> >
> > Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
> >
> > And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 18:54:17
It just occurred to me that the first writer (historian or not) capable of presenting a balanced, sensitive portrait of both H7 and R3, rather than the tired habit of victimizing one in support of the other, might have something wonderful to say. So I throw this idea out to anyone who wants to run with it, who thinks they can get the characters' "voices" right.
Insert Richard and Henry in the afterlife's medieval equivalent to a library in a Victorian gentlemen's club. Seat them across from each other. Insert a third character -- an historian, a scholar, or a student? -- who is trying to figure out both men/kings.
Let them all have an honest dialogue (a series of conversations) discussing everything under the York Sunne and the Tudor Rose. Nothing is off limits. Heated debate is welcome. Mudslinging isn't.
That's a book I want to read. Because I am entirely out of patience with every writer of fiction or non-fiction -- from any century -- who has to prop up H7 at the expense of R3. That, in itself, suggests that something was very wrong with the reign of H7.
But maybe, just maybe, if someone distilled these two men down to just...two...men...two human beings talking across a table as they never could in life, a more balanced viewpoint could be found. And if it can't? Well, then, it must be that without bad-guy Richard, Henry could never be good. They'll both be painted in black and white, evil and good, into perpetuity, shoved into their respective shoe boxes. The simplistic view of both kings will dominate infinitum, ad nauseum, with no realistic human shades of gray intruding upon the unsophisticated, stereotypical cut-outs established ~500 years ago.
How boring and pedestrian is that?
~Weds
Insert Richard and Henry in the afterlife's medieval equivalent to a library in a Victorian gentlemen's club. Seat them across from each other. Insert a third character -- an historian, a scholar, or a student? -- who is trying to figure out both men/kings.
Let them all have an honest dialogue (a series of conversations) discussing everything under the York Sunne and the Tudor Rose. Nothing is off limits. Heated debate is welcome. Mudslinging isn't.
That's a book I want to read. Because I am entirely out of patience with every writer of fiction or non-fiction -- from any century -- who has to prop up H7 at the expense of R3. That, in itself, suggests that something was very wrong with the reign of H7.
But maybe, just maybe, if someone distilled these two men down to just...two...men...two human beings talking across a table as they never could in life, a more balanced viewpoint could be found. And if it can't? Well, then, it must be that without bad-guy Richard, Henry could never be good. They'll both be painted in black and white, evil and good, into perpetuity, shoved into their respective shoe boxes. The simplistic view of both kings will dominate infinitum, ad nauseum, with no realistic human shades of gray intruding upon the unsophisticated, stereotypical cut-outs established ~500 years ago.
How boring and pedestrian is that?
~Weds
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 19:01:52
I wrote about it yesterday under a topic of that heading. I have it on my desk. H
________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 17:36
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
Never heard that before? I definitely won't be buying it.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
> >
> > Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
> >
> > And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 17:36
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
Never heard that before? I definitely won't be buying it.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
> >
> > Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
> >
> > And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 19:08:26
I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 18:54
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
It just occurred to me that the first writer (historian or not) capable of presenting a balanced, sensitive portrait of both H7 and R3, rather than the tired habit of victimizing one in support of the other, might have something wonderful to say. So I throw this idea out to anyone who wants to run with it, who thinks they can get the characters' "voices" right.
Insert Richard and Henry in the afterlife's medieval equivalent to a library in a Victorian gentlemen's club. Seat them across from each other. Insert a third character -- an historian, a scholar, or a student? -- who is trying to figure out both men/kings.
Let them all have an honest dialogue (a series of conversations) discussing everything under the York Sunne and the Tudor Rose. Nothing is off limits. Heated debate is welcome. Mudslinging isn't.
That's a book I want to read. Because I am entirely out of patience with every writer of fiction or non-fiction -- from any century -- who has to prop up H7 at the expense of R3. That, in itself, suggests that something was very wrong with the reign of H7.
But maybe, just maybe, if someone distilled these two men down to just...two...men...two human beings talking across a table as they never could in life, a more balanced viewpoint could be found. And if it can't? Well, then, it must be that without bad-guy Richard, Henry could never be good. They'll both be painted in black and white, evil and good, into perpetuity, shoved into their respective shoe boxes. The simplistic view of both kings will dominate infinitum, ad nauseum, with no realistic human shades of gray intruding upon the unsophisticated, stereotypical cut-outs established ~500 years ago.
How boring and pedestrian is that?
~Weds
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 18:54
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
It just occurred to me that the first writer (historian or not) capable of presenting a balanced, sensitive portrait of both H7 and R3, rather than the tired habit of victimizing one in support of the other, might have something wonderful to say. So I throw this idea out to anyone who wants to run with it, who thinks they can get the characters' "voices" right.
Insert Richard and Henry in the afterlife's medieval equivalent to a library in a Victorian gentlemen's club. Seat them across from each other. Insert a third character -- an historian, a scholar, or a student? -- who is trying to figure out both men/kings.
Let them all have an honest dialogue (a series of conversations) discussing everything under the York Sunne and the Tudor Rose. Nothing is off limits. Heated debate is welcome. Mudslinging isn't.
That's a book I want to read. Because I am entirely out of patience with every writer of fiction or non-fiction -- from any century -- who has to prop up H7 at the expense of R3. That, in itself, suggests that something was very wrong with the reign of H7.
But maybe, just maybe, if someone distilled these two men down to just...two...men...two human beings talking across a table as they never could in life, a more balanced viewpoint could be found. And if it can't? Well, then, it must be that without bad-guy Richard, Henry could never be good. They'll both be painted in black and white, evil and good, into perpetuity, shoved into their respective shoe boxes. The simplistic view of both kings will dominate infinitum, ad nauseum, with no realistic human shades of gray intruding upon the unsophisticated, stereotypical cut-outs established ~500 years ago.
How boring and pedestrian is that?
~Weds
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-23 19:09:33
Not boring or pedestrian at all. It sounds like a fantastic over to me..... Sort of like, "if you could have dinner with two other people, who would they be"?
On May 23, 2013, at 12:54 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
It just occurred to me that the first writer (historian or not) capable of presenting a balanced, sensitive portrait of both H7 and R3, rather than the tired habit of victimizing one in support of the other, might have something wonderful to say. So I throw this idea out to anyone who wants to run with it, who thinks they can get the characters' "voices" right.
Insert Richard and Henry in the afterlife's medieval equivalent to a library in a Victorian gentlemen's club. Seat them across from each other. Insert a third character -- an historian, a scholar, or a student? -- who is trying to figure out both men/kings.
Let them all have an honest dialogue (a series of conversations) discussing everything under the York Sunne and the Tudor Rose. Nothing is off limits. Heated debate is welcome. Mudslinging isn't.
That's a book I want to read. Because I am entirely out of patience with every writer of fiction or non-fiction -- from any century -- who has to prop up H7 at the expense of R3. That, in itself, suggests that something was very wrong with the reign of H7.
But maybe, just maybe, if someone distilled these two men down to just...two...men...two human beings talking across a table as they never could in life, a more balanced viewpoint could be found. And if it can't? Well, then, it must be that without bad-guy Richard, Henry could never be good. They'll both be painted in black and white, evil and good, into perpetuity, shoved into their respective shoe boxes. The simplistic view of both kings will dominate infinitum, ad nauseum, with no realistic human shades of gray intruding upon the unsophisticated, stereotypical cut-outs established ~500 years ago.
How boring and pedestrian is that?
~Weds
On May 23, 2013, at 12:54 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
It just occurred to me that the first writer (historian or not) capable of presenting a balanced, sensitive portrait of both H7 and R3, rather than the tired habit of victimizing one in support of the other, might have something wonderful to say. So I throw this idea out to anyone who wants to run with it, who thinks they can get the characters' "voices" right.
Insert Richard and Henry in the afterlife's medieval equivalent to a library in a Victorian gentlemen's club. Seat them across from each other. Insert a third character -- an historian, a scholar, or a student? -- who is trying to figure out both men/kings.
Let them all have an honest dialogue (a series of conversations) discussing everything under the York Sunne and the Tudor Rose. Nothing is off limits. Heated debate is welcome. Mudslinging isn't.
That's a book I want to read. Because I am entirely out of patience with every writer of fiction or non-fiction -- from any century -- who has to prop up H7 at the expense of R3. That, in itself, suggests that something was very wrong with the reign of H7.
But maybe, just maybe, if someone distilled these two men down to just...two...men...two human beings talking across a table as they never could in life, a more balanced viewpoint could be found. And if it can't? Well, then, it must be that without bad-guy Richard, Henry could never be good. They'll both be painted in black and white, evil and good, into perpetuity, shoved into their respective shoe boxes. The simplistic view of both kings will dominate infinitum, ad nauseum, with no realistic human shades of gray intruding upon the unsophisticated, stereotypical cut-outs established ~500 years ago.
How boring and pedestrian is that?
~Weds
Re: Oh dear...mostly OT
2013-05-23 19:55:57
Won't argue about Tiptoff (as the saying goes, "Do what you love and love what you do"). I just meant Edward didn't share that, um, enjoyment, any more than Richard, despite his closeness to his brother had an inclination to share Big Bro's propensity for hanging out with anything wearing a skirt.
My recollection of the Chaplin stuff was that (a) it was very early on and based on his devil-like appearance (twitchy mustache and jerky, unpredictable movements). One of those things first noted by the children, themselves, as a rope-skipping ditty, then co-opted by parents as a way to get their bebes to finish their aubergines, because (b) the little "rhyme" was French, with no English or other equivalents - I was writing a paper about how celebrities had/have become like deities....
While Charlie did have an unfortunate penchant for teenagers (he married three of them...), a good deal of the controversy about his dealings with under-aged girls actually seems to dates from much later - the 1940s? - and may have been part of a deliberate attempt at character assassination by J. Edgar Hoover and crew. Didn't help, of course, that CC claimed he'd wooed thousands ...but he also said he didn't consummate all those relationships. Your mention of a 12 year old has, of course, stirred my curiosity. The youngest I knew of was 15-16, and he married her. Any leads on that on 12 year old? Since Chaplin owned two near-identical houses about a mile from where we live, he's long been a subject of interest to me, even if as an example of a genius with proverbial clay feet.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I'm not surprised this book is written by a politician, frankly. The whole
> Guilt by Association thing is typical of politics. Did King Edward condone
> brutal torture, just because of Tiptoff?
I would say, yes - he employed the guy and put him in a position to give
free reign to his mania, and it's not likely he didn't know what the man
was. Just as a farmer who knowingly continues to employ a stockman who
ill-treats his cattle is responsible for the cattle being ill-treated.
*If* Richard had knowingly employed somebody who tortured peasants to death
for fun, that would be a massive black mark against him - but the evidence
suggests that the barrel-of-nails story is a 19th C invention. A late 18th
C collection of Lancashire traditions has a whole chapter and a half on
Assheton and his father, and doesn't mention it or anything like it.
> As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie
> Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall
> the book). Go figure.
This might have something to do with the fact that Chaplin had sex with a
12-year-old girl. He wasn't precisely a paedophile, since her attraction
for him was not that she was immature but that she had precociously enormous
breasts - but he did know how young she was, and there were good reasons why
children should be warned against him.
My recollection of the Chaplin stuff was that (a) it was very early on and based on his devil-like appearance (twitchy mustache and jerky, unpredictable movements). One of those things first noted by the children, themselves, as a rope-skipping ditty, then co-opted by parents as a way to get their bebes to finish their aubergines, because (b) the little "rhyme" was French, with no English or other equivalents - I was writing a paper about how celebrities had/have become like deities....
While Charlie did have an unfortunate penchant for teenagers (he married three of them...), a good deal of the controversy about his dealings with under-aged girls actually seems to dates from much later - the 1940s? - and may have been part of a deliberate attempt at character assassination by J. Edgar Hoover and crew. Didn't help, of course, that CC claimed he'd wooed thousands ...but he also said he didn't consummate all those relationships. Your mention of a 12 year old has, of course, stirred my curiosity. The youngest I knew of was 15-16, and he married her. Any leads on that on 12 year old? Since Chaplin owned two near-identical houses about a mile from where we live, he's long been a subject of interest to me, even if as an example of a genius with proverbial clay feet.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I'm not surprised this book is written by a politician, frankly. The whole
> Guilt by Association thing is typical of politics. Did King Edward condone
> brutal torture, just because of Tiptoff?
I would say, yes - he employed the guy and put him in a position to give
free reign to his mania, and it's not likely he didn't know what the man
was. Just as a farmer who knowingly continues to employ a stockman who
ill-treats his cattle is responsible for the cattle being ill-treated.
*If* Richard had knowingly employed somebody who tortured peasants to death
for fun, that would be a massive black mark against him - but the evidence
suggests that the barrel-of-nails story is a 19th C invention. A late 18th
C collection of Lancashire traditions has a whole chapter and a half on
Assheton and his father, and doesn't mention it or anything like it.
> As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie
> Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall
> the book). Go figure.
This might have something to do with the fact that Chaplin had sex with a
12-year-old girl. He wasn't precisely a paedophile, since her attraction
for him was not that she was immature but that she had precociously enormous
breasts - but he did know how young she was, and there were good reasons why
children should be warned against him.
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 01:57:36
I take it he's politically attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him to do if he's to survive politically?
Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 09:14:16
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
> I take it he's politically
attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him
to do if he's to survive politically?
Not as far as I'm aware. His constituency is in Gloucestershire, where he's always been based.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
I take it he's politically attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him to do if he's to survive politically?
Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
> I take it he's politically
attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him
to do if he's to survive politically?
Not as far as I'm aware. His constituency is in Gloucestershire, where he's always been based.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
I take it he's politically attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him to do if he's to survive politically?
Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 10:24:06
No I think he's Oxbridge and lecturered at Bristol (aha Time Team). He was the one who made the speech in the Commons about giving R an impressive burial. I think it's more to do with appealing to the masses - he's MP for Kingswood Bristol. He's previously written on E6 and Elizabeth and Dudley according to the book cover.
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
I take it he's politically attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him to do if he's to survive politically?
Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
I take it he's politically attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him to do if he's to survive politically?
Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 10:31:58
Yes - it's Kingswood Bristol.
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 9:14
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
> I take it he's politically
attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him
to do if he's to survive politically?
Not as far as I'm aware. His constituency is in Gloucestershire, where he's always been based.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
I take it he's politically attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him to do if he's to survive politically?
Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 9:14
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
> I take it he's politically
attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him
to do if he's to survive politically?
Not as far as I'm aware. His constituency is in Gloucestershire, where he's always been based.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
I take it he's politically attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him to do if he's to survive politically?
Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 10:58:56
Tudor historian and member of Richard III Society in same sentence
sounds really odd!:-)
Is he the guy who bought Crosby Hall and built a Tudor mansion around it?
Paul
On 23/05/2013 15:57, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> Chris Skidmore is a Tudor historian. He chaired the Richard III Society Conference in Leicester. He is a member of the Richard III Society.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
>
> He has a First in History, but that doesn't necessarily make him an historian...
>
> He's certainly published a fair amount on the Tudors - that's his comfort-zone, and probably skews his attitude to sources. Maybe the book isn't as flawed as the review suggests (didn't Hilary say she'd picked up a copy?) but, if it is, and he really subscribes to More, I find the fact that he was one of the MPs calling for a state funeral for Richard morally offensive from both the revisionist and traditionalist perspectives. Which is quite an achievement!
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:26
> Subject: RE: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
> Hi, Jonathan and everyone
>
> I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
>
> The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
>
> Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
>
> (That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
>
> Oy vey!!!
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
> Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
>
> What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
> Subject: Re: Oh dear...
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>>
>> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>>
>> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
sounds really odd!:-)
Is he the guy who bought Crosby Hall and built a Tudor mansion around it?
Paul
On 23/05/2013 15:57, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> Chris Skidmore is a Tudor historian. He chaired the Richard III Society Conference in Leicester. He is a member of the Richard III Society.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
>
> He has a First in History, but that doesn't necessarily make him an historian...
>
> He's certainly published a fair amount on the Tudors - that's his comfort-zone, and probably skews his attitude to sources. Maybe the book isn't as flawed as the review suggests (didn't Hilary say she'd picked up a copy?) but, if it is, and he really subscribes to More, I find the fact that he was one of the MPs calling for a state funeral for Richard morally offensive from both the revisionist and traditionalist perspectives. Which is quite an achievement!
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:26
> Subject: RE: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
> Hi, Jonathan and everyone
>
> I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
>
> The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
>
> Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
>
> (That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
>
> Oy vey!!!
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
> Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
>
> What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
> Subject: Re: Oh dear...
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>>
>> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>>
>> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 13:10:47
He's an MP and lectured at Bristol uni. He's been shouting loudly (in the Commons as well) ever since R's remains have been found. I have just bought BBC History and there's a huge article by him on Henry and Richard. Everything every chronicler says is presented as fact - just like the book.
And yes, I have to admit I secretly thought the same about Alison Weir. She and PG didn't shine against Mantel, did they?
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 10:58
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Tudor historian and member of Richard III Society in same sentence
sounds really odd!:-)
Is he the guy who bought Crosby Hall and built a Tudor mansion around it?
Paul
On 23/05/2013 15:57, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> Chris Skidmore is a Tudor historian. He chaired the Richard III Society Conference in Leicester. He is a member of the Richard III Society.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
>
> He has a First in History, but that doesn't necessarily make him an historian...
>
> He's certainly published a fair amount on the Tudors - that's his comfort-zone, and probably skews his attitude to sources. Maybe the book isn't as flawed as the review suggests (didn't Hilary say she'd picked up a copy?) but, if it is, and he really subscribes to More, I find the fact that he was one of the MPs calling for a state funeral for Richard morally offensive from both the revisionist and traditionalist perspectives. Which is quite an achievement!
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:26
> Subject: RE: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
> Hi, Jonathan and everyone
>
> I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
>
> The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
>
> Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
>
> (That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
>
> Oy vey!!!
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
> Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
>
> What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
> Subject: Re: Oh dear...
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>>
>> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>>
>> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
And yes, I have to admit I secretly thought the same about Alison Weir. She and PG didn't shine against Mantel, did they?
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 10:58
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
Tudor historian and member of Richard III Society in same sentence
sounds really odd!:-)
Is he the guy who bought Crosby Hall and built a Tudor mansion around it?
Paul
On 23/05/2013 15:57, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> Chris Skidmore is a Tudor historian. He chaired the Richard III Society Conference in Leicester. He is a member of the Richard III Society.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
>
> He has a First in History, but that doesn't necessarily make him an historian...
>
> He's certainly published a fair amount on the Tudors - that's his comfort-zone, and probably skews his attitude to sources. Maybe the book isn't as flawed as the review suggests (didn't Hilary say she'd picked up a copy?) but, if it is, and he really subscribes to More, I find the fact that he was one of the MPs calling for a state funeral for Richard morally offensive from both the revisionist and traditionalist perspectives. Which is quite an achievement!
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 15:26
> Subject: RE: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
> Hi, Jonathan and everyone
>
> I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore's assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the facts or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews' deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don't add up.
>
> The review indicates wham! Bam! Skidmore's book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he's an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
>
> Maybe the book doesn't take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard's remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his facts can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
>
> (That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4'8 I don't think so!!!)
>
> Oy vey!!!
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
> Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
>
> What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
> Subject: Re: Oh dear...
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>>
>> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>>
>> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 17:38:04
No Chris Skidmore is not politically attached to Leicester. He is the MP for a constituency in Gloucestershire!!
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I take it he's politically attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him to do if he's to survive politically?
>
> Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
>
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I take it he's politically attached to Leicester, so sucking up to Leicester is the thing for him to do if he's to survive politically?
>
> Thank heaven PL and JAH's involvement is preserved on film and in other sources.
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I've only dipped Weds but felt it just that. What a missed opportunity. In my topic called Chris Skidmore you'll see that he also failed to acknowledge any role at Leicester played by PL or JAH
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 20:11:42
liz williams wrote:
>
> Exactly what I was going to say!Â
> Â
> And Richard was "not" one foot shorter. they said he "could" have been "up to" one foot shorter which is not the same thing at all.Â
> Â
> And he wasn't haemorraging support.
Carol adds:
My sentiments exactly. And how, dare I ask, does "frail" bones and one shoulder higher than the other add up to "furious human pretzel"?
Between Skidmore himself and the reviewer, we have yet more nonsense to contend with.
Carol
>
> Exactly what I was going to say!Â
> Â
> And Richard was "not" one foot shorter. they said he "could" have been "up to" one foot shorter which is not the same thing at all.Â
> Â
> And he wasn't haemorraging support.
Carol adds:
My sentiments exactly. And how, dare I ask, does "frail" bones and one shoulder higher than the other add up to "furious human pretzel"?
Between Skidmore himself and the reviewer, we have yet more nonsense to contend with.
Carol
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 20:22:50
Wednesday wrote:
>
> It just occurred to me that the first writer (historian or not) capable of presenting a balanced, sensitive portrait of both H7 and R3, rather than the tired habit of victimizing one in support of the other, might have something wonderful to say. So I throw this idea out to anyone who wants to run with it, who thinks they can get the characters' "voices" right.
>
> Insert Richard and Henry in the afterlife's medieval equivalent to a library in a Victorian gentlemen's club. Seat them across from each other. Insert a third character -- an historian, a scholar, or a student? -- who is trying to figure out both men/kings.
>
> Let them all have an honest dialogue (a series of conversations) discussing everything under the York Sunne and the Tudor Rose. Nothing is off limits. Heated debate is welcome. Mudslinging isn't. [snip]
Carol responds:
That reminds me. About twenty years ago, I saw a play about Richard and his brothers in the afterlife. Unfortunately, the only thing I remember is a wonderful scene where George of Clarence, who has just died, confronts Edmund of Rutland (still seventeen in the afterlife) with "You are not my older brother!" Has anyone else seen that play and, if so, do you remember the title of it? I vaguely remember it's being more or less favorable to Richard, but I'm not certain. (Henry Tudor wasn't in it, though. Sorry, Weds!)
Carol
>
> It just occurred to me that the first writer (historian or not) capable of presenting a balanced, sensitive portrait of both H7 and R3, rather than the tired habit of victimizing one in support of the other, might have something wonderful to say. So I throw this idea out to anyone who wants to run with it, who thinks they can get the characters' "voices" right.
>
> Insert Richard and Henry in the afterlife's medieval equivalent to a library in a Victorian gentlemen's club. Seat them across from each other. Insert a third character -- an historian, a scholar, or a student? -- who is trying to figure out both men/kings.
>
> Let them all have an honest dialogue (a series of conversations) discussing everything under the York Sunne and the Tudor Rose. Nothing is off limits. Heated debate is welcome. Mudslinging isn't. [snip]
Carol responds:
That reminds me. About twenty years ago, I saw a play about Richard and his brothers in the afterlife. Unfortunately, the only thing I remember is a wonderful scene where George of Clarence, who has just died, confronts Edmund of Rutland (still seventeen in the afterlife) with "You are not my older brother!" Has anyone else seen that play and, if so, do you remember the title of it? I vaguely remember it's being more or less favorable to Richard, but I'm not certain. (Henry Tudor wasn't in it, though. Sorry, Weds!)
Carol
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 20:34:20
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I missed that earlier discussion. Maybe Sir Ralph was a sort of Gilles de Rais? Highly respected and honoured warrior, companion of Joan of Arc...but he had a nasty habit of killing small boys and burying them on his estates. A little something Joan's "celestial voices" remained silent upon....
Carol responds:
Not at all. Sir Ralph Assheton was Richard's vice constable, the one charged with executing his own former superior, England's lord constable, Buckingham. Most likely, the legends about Sir Ralph stemmed from his association with the "murdering usurper," Richard, and his having executed the "innocent" Buckingham.
Here's a link to Claire's post on the legend surrounding him. You can follow the discussion from there:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/31462
You may have noticed that many of Richard's followers, including Viscount Lovell and especially Sir James Tyrell, have been dragged through the mud along with him. A notable exception was the Duke of Norfolk, who had living descendants at the Tudor court, including two grandsons who were children at the time of Bosworth (and more or less hostages for their father, the Earl of Surrey's, good behavior during and after his imprisonment if I interprest the situation correctly).
Carol
>
> I missed that earlier discussion. Maybe Sir Ralph was a sort of Gilles de Rais? Highly respected and honoured warrior, companion of Joan of Arc...but he had a nasty habit of killing small boys and burying them on his estates. A little something Joan's "celestial voices" remained silent upon....
Carol responds:
Not at all. Sir Ralph Assheton was Richard's vice constable, the one charged with executing his own former superior, England's lord constable, Buckingham. Most likely, the legends about Sir Ralph stemmed from his association with the "murdering usurper," Richard, and his having executed the "innocent" Buckingham.
Here's a link to Claire's post on the legend surrounding him. You can follow the discussion from there:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/31462
You may have noticed that many of Richard's followers, including Viscount Lovell and especially Sir James Tyrell, have been dragged through the mud along with him. A notable exception was the Duke of Norfolk, who had living descendants at the Tudor court, including two grandsons who were children at the time of Bosworth (and more or less hostages for their father, the Earl of Surrey's, good behavior during and after his imprisonment if I interprest the situation correctly).
Carol
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 20:36:27
Judy wrote:
>
> As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall the book). Go figure.
Carol responds:
Hm. I thought that was "Boney" (Napoleon Bonaparte).
Carol
>
> As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall the book). Go figure.
Carol responds:
Hm. I thought that was "Boney" (Napoleon Bonaparte).
Carol
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-24 21:19:07
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
> My sentiments exactly. And how, dare I ask, does "frail" bones and one
> shoulder higher than the other add up to "furious human pretzel"?
And the archaologists didn't say he had frail bones anyway - they said he
had bones like a woman's, a very different matter (unless she has
osteoporosis). As a fully-paid-up woman I resent the implication that
having feminine-type bones equates to being fragile.
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
> My sentiments exactly. And how, dare I ask, does "frail" bones and one
> shoulder higher than the other add up to "furious human pretzel"?
And the archaologists didn't say he had frail bones anyway - they said he
had bones like a woman's, a very different matter (unless she has
osteoporosis). As a fully-paid-up woman I resent the implication that
having feminine-type bones equates to being fragile.
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-25 00:34:54
The Devil de Jour? :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
Judy wrote:
>
> As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall the book). Go figure.
Carol responds:
Hm. I thought that was "Boney" (Napoleon Bonaparte).
Carol
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
Judy wrote:
>
> As for children's "prayers," people used to warn their kids Charlie Chaplin would get'em and eat'em (source: a film class...but can't recall the book). Go figure.
Carol responds:
Hm. I thought that was "Boney" (Napoleon Bonaparte).
Carol
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-25 01:52:55
I think this is the electronic equivalent of things "crossing in the post." My Gilles de Rais comment was a lame French jest, which I followed, shortly thereafter with another Email. This followup said in part:
"A king [Richard] known for his fairness
and mercy is hardly likely to condone the barrel-of-nails treatment...though I
can think of several people who actually deserved to be rolled down a nice
steep hill. Maybe twice."
I thought (mistakenly, I guess) this would clarify how much credence I gave the story (which is to say "zippo").
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I missed that earlier discussion. Maybe Sir Ralph was a sort of Gilles de Rais? Highly respected and honoured warrior, companion of Joan of Arc...but he had a nasty habit of killing small boys and burying them on his estates. A little something Joan's "celestial voices" remained silent upon....
Carol responds:
Not at all. Sir Ralph Assheton was Richard's vice constable, the one charged with executing his own former superior, England's lord constable, Buckingham. Most likely, the legends about Sir Ralph stemmed from his association with the "murdering usurper," Richard, and his having executed the "innocent" Buckingham.
Here's a link to Claire's post on the legend surrounding him. You can follow the discussion from there:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/31462
You may have noticed that many of Richard's followers, including Viscount Lovell and especially Sir James Tyrell, have been dragged through the mud along with him. A notable exception was the Duke of Norfolk, who had living descendants at the Tudor court, including two grandsons who were children at the time of Bosworth (and more or less hostages for their father, the Earl of Surrey's, good behavior during and after his imprisonment if I interprest the situation correctly).
Carol
"A king [Richard] known for his fairness
and mercy is hardly likely to condone the barrel-of-nails treatment...though I
can think of several people who actually deserved to be rolled down a nice
steep hill. Maybe twice."
I thought (mistakenly, I guess) this would clarify how much credence I gave the story (which is to say "zippo").
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Oh dear...
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I missed that earlier discussion. Maybe Sir Ralph was a sort of Gilles de Rais? Highly respected and honoured warrior, companion of Joan of Arc...but he had a nasty habit of killing small boys and burying them on his estates. A little something Joan's "celestial voices" remained silent upon....
Carol responds:
Not at all. Sir Ralph Assheton was Richard's vice constable, the one charged with executing his own former superior, England's lord constable, Buckingham. Most likely, the legends about Sir Ralph stemmed from his association with the "murdering usurper," Richard, and his having executed the "innocent" Buckingham.
Here's a link to Claire's post on the legend surrounding him. You can follow the discussion from there:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/31462
You may have noticed that many of Richard's followers, including Viscount Lovell and especially Sir James Tyrell, have been dragged through the mud along with him. A notable exception was the Duke of Norfolk, who had living descendants at the Tudor court, including two grandsons who were children at the time of Bosworth (and more or less hostages for their father, the Earl of Surrey's, good behavior during and after his imprisonment if I interprest the situation correctly).
Carol
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-25 10:14:14
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> The Devil de Jour? :-)
I found a reference to Chaplin's interest in a 12-year-old in this biography
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q8LM2FvSF70C&pg=PT36&lpg=PT36&dq=%22charlie+chaplin%22+%22twelve+year+old%22+breasts&source=bl&ots=TuF5W48SVk&sig=vLkZVV1DivPxEecpQSfPO72zfF8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e_ufUZqqJMPP0AXD_4G4DQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ
It makes him sound more paedophilic but less villainous than the article I
read about three years ago. Here it claims that he was actually put off
when his fancy started to develop breasts - meaning that he found immaturity
attractive - but he claimed his interest was asexual. Since he himself
described his feelings as "a most violent crush on a girl ten or twelve" and
said that he "loved to carress and fondle her" I think he was probably
kidding himself, but it sounds as though he at least tried to stop short of
outright molestation, so his behaviour was possibly just a bit creepy rather
than actively criminal.
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> The Devil de Jour? :-)
I found a reference to Chaplin's interest in a 12-year-old in this biography
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q8LM2FvSF70C&pg=PT36&lpg=PT36&dq=%22charlie+chaplin%22+%22twelve+year+old%22+breasts&source=bl&ots=TuF5W48SVk&sig=vLkZVV1DivPxEecpQSfPO72zfF8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e_ufUZqqJMPP0AXD_4G4DQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ
It makes him sound more paedophilic but less villainous than the article I
read about three years ago. Here it claims that he was actually put off
when his fancy started to develop breasts - meaning that he found immaturity
attractive - but he claimed his interest was asexual. Since he himself
described his feelings as "a most violent crush on a girl ten or twelve" and
said that he "loved to carress and fondle her" I think he was probably
kidding himself, but it sounds as though he at least tried to stop short of
outright molestation, so his behaviour was possibly just a bit creepy rather
than actively criminal.
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-25 10:16:19
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I thought (mistakenly, I guess) this would clarify how much credence I
> gave the story (which is to say "zippo").
Giving it *no* credence may be overstating the case. It certainly looks as
though the barrel-of-nails story is a later addition but we don't know for
sure: Edward employed Tiptoft, after all.
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I thought (mistakenly, I guess) this would clarify how much credence I
> gave the story (which is to say "zippo").
Giving it *no* credence may be overstating the case. It certainly looks as
though the barrel-of-nails story is a later addition but we don't know for
sure: Edward employed Tiptoft, after all.
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-25 13:51:46
Interesting. Thanks.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> The Devil de Jour? :-)
I found a reference to Chaplin's interest in a 12-year-old in this biography
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q8LM2FvSF70C&pg=PT36&lpg=PT36&dq=%22charlie+chaplin%22+%22twelve+year+old%22+breasts&source=bl&ots=TuF5W48SVk&sig=vLkZVV1DivPxEecpQSfPO72zfF8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e_ufUZqqJMPP0AXD_4G4DQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ
It makes him sound more paedophilic but less villainous than the article I
read about three years ago. Here it claims that he was actually put off
when his fancy started to develop breasts - meaning that he found immaturity
attractive - but he claimed his interest was asexual. Since he himself
described his feelings as "a most violent crush on a girl ten or twelve" and
said that he "loved to carress and fondle her" I think he was probably
kidding himself, but it sounds as though he at least tried to stop short of
outright molestation, so his behaviour was possibly just a bit creepy rather
than actively criminal.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> The Devil de Jour? :-)
I found a reference to Chaplin's interest in a 12-year-old in this biography
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q8LM2FvSF70C&pg=PT36&lpg=PT36&dq=%22charlie+chaplin%22+%22twelve+year+old%22+breasts&source=bl&ots=TuF5W48SVk&sig=vLkZVV1DivPxEecpQSfPO72zfF8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e_ufUZqqJMPP0AXD_4G4DQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ
It makes him sound more paedophilic but less villainous than the article I
read about three years ago. Here it claims that he was actually put off
when his fancy started to develop breasts - meaning that he found immaturity
attractive - but he claimed his interest was asexual. Since he himself
described his feelings as "a most violent crush on a girl ten or twelve" and
said that he "loved to carress and fondle her" I think he was probably
kidding himself, but it sounds as though he at least tried to stop short of
outright molestation, so his behaviour was possibly just a bit creepy rather
than actively criminal.
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-25 14:19:34
Claire, why so adversarial?
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I thought (mistakenly, I guess) this would clarify how much credence I
> gave the story (which is to say "zippo").
Giving it *no* credence may be overstating the case. It certainly looks as
though the barrel-of-nails story is a later addition but we don't know for
sure: Edward employed Tiptoft, after all.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
> I thought (mistakenly, I guess) this would clarify how much credence I
> gave the story (which is to say "zippo").
Giving it *no* credence may be overstating the case. It certainly looks as
though the barrel-of-nails story is a later addition but we don't know for
sure: Edward employed Tiptoft, after all.
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-26 07:01:07
Only read the first 2 paragraphs as this computer I'm using isn't mine and don't want to break it...
Didn't Richard have more men than Tudor. Hemorraging support, really?
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Didn't Richard have more men than Tudor. Hemorraging support, really?
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
>
> Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
>
> And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-26 07:01:25
Re: Richard being 4 foot 8. That annoyed me too, and the statement 'a human pretzel' is really offensive to people who have scoliosis. It's a disorder that still exists and that people still have to deal with, stigma and all.
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jonathan and everyone â€"
>
> I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore’s assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don’t see how anyone can look at the facts â€" or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews’ deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don’t add up.
>
>
>
> The review indicates â€" wham! Bam! Skidmore’s book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he’s an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
>
>
>
> Maybe the book doesn’t take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard’s remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his “facts†can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
>
>
>
> (That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4’8†â€" I don’t think so!!!)
>
>
>
> Oy vey!!!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
>
>
> Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
>
> What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
> Subject: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
> >
> > Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
> >
> > And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jonathan and everyone â€"
>
> I admit I find the review riveting, although it sounds like many of Skidmore’s assertions are questionable. Frankly, I don’t see how anyone can look at the facts â€" or lack of facts and lack of motive for Richard being responsible for his nephews’ deaths and deem him guilty. There are too many things that don’t add up.
>
>
>
> The review indicates â€" wham! Bam! Skidmore’s book is instantly the most authoritative book on Bosworth. Excuse, please. . . is Skidmore a historian? I know he’s an MP. Does that somehow give him a preeminent position that has somehow escaped me up to now?
>
>
>
> Maybe the book doesn’t take as polemical a position as the review seems to indicate. But I would like to stick my oar in and say that Skidmore has taken advantage of the publicity generated by the discovery of Richard’s remains to hype his book, and in that sense it seems rather sleazy to me. At the time, I thought it might have been just his publisher who wanted a title indicating that it was the dawn of the Tudor era, but it does seem that that is an indication of the slant that Skidmore has taken on the events. I have a feeling that many of his “facts†can probably be cut to ribbons. You might say!
>
>
>
> (That really bothers me, in effect saying Richard was 4’8†â€" I don’t think so!!!)
>
>
>
> Oy vey!!!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:43 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
>
>
> Think it's supposed to be Sir Ralph Assheton, who was discussed on here a little while back.
>
> What gets me about the trad view is not so much that it's expressed, but that it's expressed with such vehement certainty. This is anti-historical given that the scant sources we have depend so much on subjective interpretation. Revisionism seems less prone to what's almost a "High Tory" approach - I suppose because, in having to challenge the trad view, it implicitly accepts that there's an alternative argument.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
> Subject: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
> >
> > Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
> >
> > And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-26 17:59:59
-"Ms Jones" wrote:
>
> Only read the first 2 paragraphs as this computer I'm using isn't mine and don't want to break it...
>
> Didn't Richard have more men than Tudor. Hemorraging support, really?
Carol responds:
Maybe the writer has him mixed up with Buckingham, whose troops deserted him. Even Tudor propaganda has Richard's men throwing down their weapons only after Richard's death (no mention of those who died fighting loyally before or after his death). The only two people who actually deserted to join Tudor, Walter Hungerford and Thomas Bourchier, were known Lancastrian (Tudor?) sympathizers. Why Richard asked Brackenbury to bring them with him is unclear to me.
Tudor had only about 2,000 English supporters (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), including Woodvillites and other Yorkists who supported him only because he had promised to marry EoY (and because they'd been led to believe that her brothers were dead). The majority of his troops were French mercenaries supplemented by the Welsh followers of Rhys ap Thomas (who had beenbribed by Tudor to support him instead of Richard).
Carol
>
> Only read the first 2 paragraphs as this computer I'm using isn't mine and don't want to break it...
>
> Didn't Richard have more men than Tudor. Hemorraging support, really?
Carol responds:
Maybe the writer has him mixed up with Buckingham, whose troops deserted him. Even Tudor propaganda has Richard's men throwing down their weapons only after Richard's death (no mention of those who died fighting loyally before or after his death). The only two people who actually deserted to join Tudor, Walter Hungerford and Thomas Bourchier, were known Lancastrian (Tudor?) sympathizers. Why Richard asked Brackenbury to bring them with him is unclear to me.
Tudor had only about 2,000 English supporters (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), including Woodvillites and other Yorkists who supported him only because he had promised to marry EoY (and because they'd been led to believe that her brothers were dead). The majority of his troops were French mercenaries supplemented by the Welsh followers of Rhys ap Thomas (who had beenbribed by Tudor to support him instead of Richard).
Carol
Re: Oh dear...
2013-05-27 04:13:32
4'8"? Is he kidding? 3/4"-12"! Not a definitive 4'8"!
How long are they going to misrepresent facts? I couldn't leave a comment without registering which I don't want to do!
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 23, 2013, at 9:31 AM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Exactly what I was going to say!
>
> And Richard was "not" one foot shorter. they said he "could" have been "up to" one foot shorter which is not the same thing at all.
>
> And he wasn't haemorraging support.
>
> And - I am speechless, more or less.
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
> Subject: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
> >
> > Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
> >
> > And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Exact"
>
>
>
>
How long are they going to misrepresent facts? I couldn't leave a comment without registering which I don't want to do!
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 23, 2013, at 9:31 AM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Exactly what I was going to say!
>
> And Richard was "not" one foot shorter. they said he "could" have been "up to" one foot shorter which is not the same thing at all.
>
> And he wasn't haemorraging support.
>
> And - I am speechless, more or less.
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:17
> Subject: Re: Oh dear...
>
>
> And who was the black knight who rolled people down a hill in barrels of spikes....?eilen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8913501/bosworth-chris-skidmore-review/
> >
> > Sounds a bit like he's channelling Seward.
> >
> > And I'd be interested to know who this mysterious servant who dressed Richard for his coronation is supposed to be...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Exact"
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.