'The King's Grave'

A review from 'The Guardian' that's interesting mainly in the context of who the reviewer is:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/kings-grave-richard-iii-langley-jones-review
It's actually a book I rather enjoyed. I think Philippa Langley was ill-served by how the documentary was edited, but here she presents her emotional connection with Richard's story honestly and with self-awareness, and to have tried to elide it with a veneer of objectivity would have seemed false.
Michael Jones provides academic weight as well as stylish prose and, ironically, despite believing that Richard was probably responsible for the deaths of his nephews, contrives to write the most laudatory portrait of him since Kendall.
Jonathan

Having read it also I agree with you Jonathan. Philippa would have been false had she been anything but Philippa. As I said in another post, every cause needs its fanatics (sorry if that's a bit harsh meant really enthusiastic person who will stop at nothing). And Jones has, in not just this book, done as much for Richard's cause as anyone. H

On Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 15:19, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
A review from 'The Guardian' that's interesting mainly in the context of who the reviewer is:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/kings-grave-richard-iii-langley-jones-review
It's actually a book I rather enjoyed. I think Philippa Langley was ill-served by how the documentary was edited, but here she presents her emotional connection with Richard's story honestly and with self-awareness, and to have tried to elide it with a veneer of objectivity would have seemed false.
Michael Jones provides academic weight as well as stylish prose and, ironically, despite believing that Richard was probably responsible for the deaths of his nephews, contrives to write the most laudatory portrait of him since Kendall.
Jonathan

It would be so easy to laugh and sneer at Phillipa except for the fact that she was right. It all sounds so unlikely, but she was right. She got "goose bumps" above the letter "R" in a car park, but she was right
Very hard to sneer at a woman who has done what many learned historians and archaeologists would love to have done. Together with John Ashdown Hill's researches miracles have been accomplished. Anyone who feels the need to sneer does so at their peril.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: 'The King's Grave'
Sent: Wed, Oct 30, 2013 5:40:10 PM

 

Having read it also I agree with you Jonathan. Philippa would have been false had she been anything but Philippa. As I said in another post, every cause needs its fanatics (sorry if that's a bit harsh meant really enthusiastic person who will stop at nothing). And Jones has, in not just this book, done as much for Richard's cause as anyone. H 

On Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 15:19, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
  A review from 'The Guardian' that's interesting mainly in the context of who the reviewer is:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/kings-grave-richard-iii-langley-jones-review
It's actually a book I rather enjoyed.  I think Philippa Langley was ill-served by how the documentary was edited, but here she presents her emotional connection with Richard's story honestly and with self-awareness, and to have tried to elide it with a veneer of objectivity would have seemed false.
Michael Jones provides academic weight as well as stylish prose and, ironically, despite believing that Richard was probably responsible for the deaths of his nephews, contrives to write the most laudatory portrait of him since Kendall.
Jonathan

Except that he thinks that Richard murdered the Princes and that Edward IV was not the Duke of York's son. Having said that I thoroughly enjoyed "1485 The Pychology of a Battle" and his points about Richard commemorating the dead at Barnet and Tewkesbury. I also think that if a more thorough archaeological dig is done at Bosworth, his version of the battle won't be that far from that of Peter Foss. Incidentally those are just my thoughts I have no proof.

---In , <> wrote:

Having read it also I agree with you Jonathan. Philippa would have been false had she been anything but Philippa. As I said in another post, every cause needs its fanatics (sorry if that's a bit harsh meant really enthusiastic person who will stop at nothing). And Jones has, in not just this book, done as much for Richard's cause as anyone. H

On Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 15:19, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
A review from 'The Guardian' that's interesting mainly in the context of who the reviewer is:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/kings-grave-richard-iii-langley-jones-review
It's actually a book I rather enjoyed. I think Philippa Langley was ill-served by how the documentary was edited, but here she presents her emotional connection with Richard's story honestly and with self-awareness, and to have tried to elide it with a veneer of objectivity would have seemed false.
Michael Jones provides academic weight as well as stylish prose and, ironically, despite believing that Richard was probably responsible for the deaths of his nephews, contrives to write the most laudatory portrait of him since Kendall.
Jonathan

Hear, hear Jessie.

---In , <> wrote:

It would be so easy to laugh and sneer at Phillipa except for the fact that she was right. It all sounds so unlikely, but she was right. She got "goose bumps" above the letter "R" in a car park, but she was right
Very hard to sneer at a woman who has done what many learned historians and archaeologists would love to have done. Together with John Ashdown Hill's researches miracles have been accomplished. Anyone who feels the need to sneer does so at their peril.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: 'The King's Grave'
Sent: Wed, Oct 30, 2013 5:40:10 PM

Having read it also I agree with you Jonathan. Philippa would have been false had she been anything but Philippa. As I said in another post, every cause needs its fanatics (sorry if that's a bit harsh meant really enthusiastic person who will stop at nothing). And Jones has, in not just this book, done as much for Richard's cause as anyone. H

On Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 15:19, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
A review from 'The Guardian' that's interesting mainly in the context of who the reviewer is:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/kings-grave-richard-iii-langley-jones-review
It's actually a book I rather enjoyed. I think Philippa Langley was ill-served by how the documentary was edited, but here she presents her emotional connection with Richard's story honestly and with self-awareness, and to have tried to elide it with a veneer of objectivity would have seemed false.
Michael Jones provides academic weight as well as stylish prose and, ironically, despite believing that Richard was probably responsible for the deaths of his nephews, contrives to write the most laudatory portrait of him since Kendall.
Jonathan

My quarrel is not with that; but that she was silly to enter into negotiations with Leicester Uni/Leicester Cathedral. I'm sorry but it was not for Philippa to enter into negotiations about the burial arrangements for a King of England, however desperate she was. And they did take advantage of her. The Society should really have provided her with the appropriate legal advice.

On Monday, 4 November 2013, 19:43, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Hear, hear Jessie.

---In , <> wrote:

It would be so easy to laugh and sneer at Phillipa except for the fact that she was right. It all sounds so unlikely, but she was right. She got "goose bumps" above the letter "R" in a car park, but she was right
Very hard to sneer at a woman who has done what many learned historians and archaeologists would love to have done. Together with John Ashdown Hill's researches miracles have been accomplished. Anyone who feels the need to sneer does so at their peril. Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: 'The King's Grave'
Sent: Wed, Oct 30, 2013 5:40:10 PM

Having read it also I agree with you Jonathan. Philippa would have been false had she been anything but Philippa. As I said in another post, every cause needs its fanatics (sorry if that's a bit harsh meant really enthusiastic person who will stop at nothing). And Jones has, in not just this book, done as much for Richard's cause as anyone. H

On Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 15:19, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
A review from 'The Guardian' that's interesting mainly in the context of who the reviewer is:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/kings-grave-richard-iii-langley-jones-review
It's actually a book I rather enjoyed. I think Philippa Langley was ill-served by how the documentary was edited, but here she presents her emotional connection with Richard's story honestly and with self-awareness, and to have tried to elide it with a veneer of objectivity would have seemed false.
Michael Jones provides academic weight as well as stylish prose and, ironically, despite believing that Richard was probably responsible for the deaths of his nephews, contrives to write the most laudatory portrait of him since Kendall.
Jonathan

Of course he could be right on both counts, even if he is it would not stop Richard from being a remarkable man.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: maryfriend@... <maryfriend@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: 'The King's Grave'
Sent: Mon, Nov 4, 2013 7:41:47 PM

 

Except that he thinks that Richard murdered the Princes and that Edward  IV was not the Duke of York's son. Having said that I thoroughly enjoyed "1485 The Pychology of a Battle" and his points about Richard commemorating the dead at Barnet and Tewkesbury. I also think that if a more thorough archaeological dig is done at Bosworth, his version of the battle won't be that far from that of Peter Foss. Incidentally those are just my thoughts I have no proof.

---In , <> wrote:

Having read it also I agree with you Jonathan. Philippa would have been false had she been anything but Philippa. As I said in another post, every cause needs its fanatics (sorry if that's a bit harsh meant really enthusiastic person who will stop at nothing). And Jones has, in not just this book, done as much for Richard's cause as anyone. H 

On Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 15:19, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
  A review from 'The Guardian' that's interesting mainly in the context of who the reviewer is:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/kings-grave-richard-iii-langley-jones-review
It's actually a book I rather enjoyed.  I think Philippa Langley was ill-served by how the documentary was edited, but here she presents her emotional connection with Richard's story honestly and with self-awareness, and to have tried to elide it with a veneer of objectivity would have seemed false.
Michael Jones provides academic weight as well as stylish prose and, ironically, despite believing that Richard was probably responsible for the deaths of his nephews, contrives to write the most laudatory portrait of him since Kendall.
Jonathan