Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: the Binche boy

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: the Binche boy


--- In , "Coral Nelson"
<coral.nelson@b...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: oregonkaty
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 7:07 PM
> Subject: the Binche boy
>
>
> Harking back to the Binche boy, does anyone have any more
information
> or thoughts as to who he might have been?
>
> I find it very interesting that he was mentioned by name, but it
> almost certainly was not his real name. If he was not somebody
> fairly significant, would, at age 5 or so, have been traveling
under
> an alias? It sees more likey that he would have been mentioned
> either without a name -- "a young boy" -- or by his actual name,
but
> instead he is called what obviously isn't his name...even if it
> hadn't been the moniker Edward IV's fool went by, Jehan le Sage --
> "Wise Jack" or "Smart Little Johnny" -- is not a real name.
>
> Katy
> I can't believe the crap I just watched on BBC1 tonight. They as
good as said Richard was guilty of everything. There was no mention
of the fact that he would have had to have a personality transplant
to do the things they claimed, just a claim that the tudors may have
exagerrated a little. I don't know if anyone saw the Trial of
Richard 111 many years ago when he was found innocent, both sides
gave their views and a jury decided, anybody who watched tonights
show will just have had their school book history confirmed. I am
going to e-mail the BBC, they have lost my faith in their historical
programmes and the presenter ought to stick with DIY shows.

I entirely agree. There is no other word for it but crap. The system
seems to be: have the programme made by a bunch of jokers who are
entirely new to the period, know nothing and care less, and wheel in
a token academic (usually one who is not exactly known for his
contribution to our understanding of the period) for a few short
asides to lend the prog. an air of respectability - and Bob's your
uncle! Or Dick's your victim. There really is no hope when the
programme starts off by having Richard chuckling with evil intent
right from the word go, is there? Even the token historian (sorry,
who was he?) said Hastings may very well have been up to something,
but this was totally ignored. Evidence was turned completely on its
head: viz the lack of a proper block ready to execute Hastings was
hailed as proof that the whole thing was a pre-arranged plot. . . .
Pardon?? Normally, when I pre-arrange something - well I pre-arrange
it. . .

God, I've just got back from the Society study weekend in York and
talk about being brought straight back down to earth with a crunch!
Or whatever planet it was this version of events took place on. . . .

I felt like screaming: Henry Tudor was not a nice Welshman with a
charming lilt - he was precisely 1/4 Welsh and his first language of
choice was neither Welsh nor English, but French. And Richard didn't
keep his lank greasy wig on with a hairband.

Yours totally pissed off,

Marie
I know how you feel, I am totally pxssed off with the Beeb, they might as well have hung him at the start. I feel so sad that my children and others will have watched this and formed an entirely wrong view of the period. I haven't researched the subject for a long time but I did many years ago and still cannot believe that a person can change as much as they claim Richard did. It has never made sense to me, especially when the early Tudors were cruel in the extreme. For me there was always something nobel in the Yorkists (although Edward was flawed, but magnetic, they really tried to accept the monarchy but Henry VI was so inadaquete that action had to be taken. I will never accept the Richard of history because from all I have read and it was extensive at the time, he was incapable of disloyalty despite extreme provocation.

>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Coral Nelson"
<coral.nelson@b...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 7:56 PM
> Subject: Re: the Binche boy
>
>
> --- In , "Coral Nelson"
> <coral.nelson@b...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: oregonkaty
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 7:07 PM
> > Subject: the Binche boy
> >
> >
> > Harking back to the Binche boy, does anyone have any more
> information
> > or thoughts as to who he might have been?
> >
> > I find it very interesting that he was mentioned by name, but
it
> > almost certainly was not his real name. If he was not
somebody
> > fairly significant, would, at age 5 or so, have been
traveling
> under
> > an alias? It sees more likey that he would have been
mentioned
> > either without a name -- "a young boy" -- or by his actual
name,
> but
> > instead he is called what obviously isn't his name...even if
it
> > hadn't been the moniker Edward IV's fool went by, Jehan le
Sage --
> > "Wise Jack" or "Smart Little Johnny" -- is not a real name.
> >
> > Katy
> > I can't believe the crap I just watched on BBC1 tonight.
They as
> good as said Richard was guilty of everything. There was no
mention
> of the fact that he would have had to have a personality
transplant
> to do the things they claimed, just a claim that the tudors may
have
> exagerrated a little. I don't know if anyone saw the Trial of
> Richard 111 many years ago when he was found innocent, both sides
> gave their views and a jury decided, anybody who watched tonights
> show will just have had their school book history confirmed. I
am
> going to e-mail the BBC, they have lost my faith in their
historical
> programmes and the presenter ought to stick with DIY shows.
>
> I entirely agree. There is no other word for it but crap. The
system
> seems to be: have the programme made by a bunch of jokers who are
> entirely new to the period, know nothing and care less, and wheel
in
> a token academic (usually one who is not exactly known for his
> contribution to our understanding of the period) for a few short
> asides to lend the prog. an air of respectability - and Bob's
your
> uncle! Or Dick's your victim. There really is no hope when the
> programme starts off by having Richard chuckling with evil intent
> right from the word go, is there? Even the token historian
(sorry,
> who was he?) said Hastings may very well have been up to
something,
> but this was totally ignored. Evidence was turned completely on
its
> head: viz the lack of a proper block ready to execute Hastings
was
> hailed as proof that the whole thing was a pre-arranged
plot. . . .
> Pardon?? Normally, when I pre-arrange something - well I pre-
arrange
> it. . .
>
> God, I've just got back from the Society study weekend in York
and
> talk about being brought straight back down to earth with a
crunch!
> Or whatever planet it was this version of events took place
on. . . .
>
> I felt like screaming: Henry Tudor was not a nice Welshman with a
> charming lilt - he was precisely 1/4 Welsh and his first language
of
> choice was neither Welsh nor English, but French. And Richard
didn't
> keep his lank greasy wig on with a hairband.
>
> Yours totally pissed off,
>
> Marie
> I know how you feel, I am totally pxssed off with the Beeb, they
might as well have hung him at the start. I feel so sad that my
children and others will have watched this and formed an entirely
wrong view of the period. I haven't researched the subject for a
long time but I did many years ago and still cannot believe that a
person can change as much as they claim Richard did. It has never
made sense to me, especially when the early Tudors were cruel in the
extreme. For me there was always something nobel in the Yorkists
(although Edward was flawed, but magnetic, they really tried to
accept the monarchy but Henry VI was so inadaquete that action had to
be taken. I will never accept the Richard of history because from
all I have read and it was extensive at the time, he was incapable of
disloyalty despite extreme provocation.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ----------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
> I watched the last few moments of the program which i thought was
to an historical look at Richards life and Kingship, what I saw was
avery poor comedy if that was what it was supposed to be?
WhenI realised that I was missing the program I switched over to
BBC and how I wish I had'nt.
Why put a program like that on, it served no purpose whatsoever.
It told the viewer nothing that Shakespear had'nt twisted aand
informed no one about any fact until the end when it showed that
Richard was betrayed by his so called friend. to sum up in one word.
RUBBISH>
>

Add me to the list as another person who was less than impressed by
the Historyonics programme about Richard. It certainly wouldn't sway
anyone who knows nothing about Richard into being more sympathetic.
It was not a bit like the Channel 4 programmes, which were more
balanced, even if they ultimately came down mainly on the traditional
side.

What struck me most - and I know this is probably flippant but I feel
it's a relevant point - is why did they cast someone as ugly as that
as Richard? He looked like Tim McInnery as Lord Percy in
Blackadder. I mean, I'm sure this Paul Mohan, the actor, has a
lovely personality in real life, but, sadly, looks matter. As More
and Shakespeare demonstrate ugliness is equated by people with
badness.

As for the content - I know they had limited time but they only
really showed one side of the argument. They made out Richard wanted
to usurp the throne from the word go.

Plus IIRC Ronald Hutton specialises in 18th century history and the
history of magic - not exactly Richard's period.

Joanne


> > > I can't believe the crap I just watched on BBC1 tonight.
> They as
> > good as said Richard was guilty of everything. There was no
> mention
> > of the fact that he would have had to have a personality
> transplant
> > to do the things they claimed, just a claim that the tudors may
> have
> > exagerrated a little. I don't know if anyone saw the Trial of
> > Richard 111 many years ago when he was found innocent, both
sides
> > gave their views and a jury decided, anybody who watched
tonights
> > show will just have had their school book history confirmed. I
> am
> > going to e-mail the BBC, they have lost my faith in their
> historical
> > programmes and the presenter ought to stick with DIY shows.
> >
> > I entirely agree. There is no other word for it but crap. The
> system
> > seems to be: have the programme made by a bunch of jokers who
are
> > entirely new to the period, know nothing and care less, and
wheel
> in
> > a token academic (usually one who is not exactly known for his
> > contribution to our understanding of the period) for a few
short
> > asides to lend the prog. an air of respectability - and Bob's
> your
> > uncle! Or Dick's your victim. There really is no hope when the
> > programme starts off by having Richard chuckling with evil
intent
> > right from the word go, is there? Even the token historian
> (sorry,
> > who was he?) said Hastings may very well have been up to
> something,
> > but this was totally ignored. Evidence was turned completely on
> its
> > head: viz the lack of a proper block ready to execute Hastings
> was
> > hailed as proof that the whole thing was a pre-arranged
> plot. . . .
> > Pardon?? Normally, when I pre-arrange something - well I pre-
> arrange
> > it. . .
> >
> > God, I've just got back from the Society study weekend in York
> and
> > talk about being brought straight back down to earth with a
> crunch!
> > Or whatever planet it was this version of events took place
> on. . . .
> >
> > I felt like screaming: Henry Tudor was not a nice Welshman with
a
> > charming lilt - he was precisely 1/4 Welsh and his first
language
> of
> > choice was neither Welsh nor English, but French. And Richard
> didn't
> > keep his lank greasy wig on with a hairband.
> >
> > Yours totally pissed off,
> >
> > Marie
> > I know how you feel, I am totally pxssed off with the Beeb,
they
> might as well have hung him at the start. I feel so sad that my
> children and others will have watched this and formed an entirely
> wrong view of the period. I haven't researched the subject for a
> long time but I did many years ago and still cannot believe that a
> person can change as much as they claim Richard did. It has never
> made sense to me, especially when the early Tudors were cruel in
the
> extreme. For me there was always something nobel in the Yorkists
> (although Edward was flawed, but magnetic, they really tried to
> accept the monarchy but Henry VI was so inadaquete that action had
to
> be taken. I will never accept the Richard of history because from
> all I have read and it was extensive at the time, he was incapable
of
> disloyalty despite extreme provocation.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > ----------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> > >
> > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> Service.
> >
> > I watched the last few moments of the program which i thought was
> to an historical look at Richards life and Kingship, what I saw was
> avery poor comedy if that was what it was supposed to be?
> WhenI realised that I was missing the program I switched over to
> BBC and how I wish I had'nt.
> Why put a program like that on, it served no purpose whatsoever.
> It told the viewer nothing that Shakespear had'nt twisted aand
> informed no one about any fact until the end when it showed that
> Richard was betrayed by his so called friend. to sum up in one word.
> RUBBISH>
> >

> I will never accept the Richard of history
I think you meant to say the Richard of legend, as the Richard of history,
the real man, is incredibly charismatic and intelligent, and doesn't deserve
such treatment as on this BBC piece of 'mierda'
Paul