Babes in the Wood Analysis

Changing the subject line for convenience.

Carol wrote:
>Okay, I've found that my "interesting and informative article" goes off on a long, long tangent that puts our posts to shame analyzing the Tudor legend, the sources, Richard's supposed crimes, the Protectorate, the "usurpation," Titulus Regius, and the disappearance of the "Princes" from an odd perspective (the author likes Richard, especially his legislation, but thinks he probably killed his nephews and ruthlessly dispatched Hastings and Rivers). All that is best skipped unless you have lots of time and want to know what every source said and what this person makes of it all. I say he's a bit behind the times in his awareness of source material, but that's beside the point. <clipped>


Weds writes:
The author won my heart for something in his references found in Part I here:
http://www.fresnostate.edu/folklore/ballads/LQ34.html

He consulted Alison Weir's book, but note the last few words:
Weir: Alison Weir, The Princes in the Tower, Ballantine, 1992.
Pro-Richardness: 0. Research: Lousy.

It occurred to me that even if we were to set aside her lousy
research, she probably shouldn't be considered a reliable current-day
reference as her work on Richard was done 22 years ago. So why is she
recommended today? (Yes, I know she's not reliable, but people cite
her. Gah.)

We needs us moah books on Richard.

Weds wrote:
"The author won my heart for something in his references found in Part I here:
http://www.fresnostate.edu/folklore/ballads/LQ34.html He consulted Alison Weir's book, but note the last few words: Weir: Alison Weir, The Princes in the Tower, Ballantine, 1992. Pro-Richardness: 0. Research: Lousy."

Carol responds:

Yes. Love his rating scale though, unfortunately, he's overly impressed by Ross. I notice that Seward got the same rating as Weir (deservedly). One author (of a book on EoY) actually got "appalling" as a research rating.

By the way, something on page 4 http://www.fresnostate.edu/folklore/ballads/LQ34C.html relates to the "George the Short" discussion: "[Keith] Dockray, p. 2, tells us that an examination of Edward IV's skeleton in 1789 revealed that he was six foot three. [Bertram] Fields, p. 101, observes that his brother George of Clarence was five foot five -- probably no bigger than Richard. (Strangely, everyone seems to have regarded Clarence as tall -- [Desmond] Seward . . . , p. 41. He wasn't short for the time, but he was far smaller than Edward.)" So our author (Robert B. Waltz) accepts Fields's view. (Anyone care to check it out and quote the passage for us? I have Fields's book somewhere but can't locate it at the moment.) However, he (Waltz) also assumes that George was blond (for which we have no evidence one way or the other that I know of, that Edward was blond (for which we have evidence to the contrary--both portraits and strands of hair indicate that his hair, at least in adulthood, was light brown), and that Richard's hair was dark (the *cleaned* portraits indicate light to medium brown).

One additional complaint about the site (though it has its merits or I wouldn't have pointed it out) is that it's nearly impossible to navigate from page to page, or, at least, if there are links, I didn't find them and had to Google each page separately.

Carol

Carol earlier:

"I notice that Seward got the same rating as Weir (deservedly)."

Carol responds:

Knew I should have double-checked that. Seward got "poor"; Weir got "lousy," which I take it is even worse than "poor." I'd give them both "appalling" if it were up to me.

Carol