Dan Jones

Having read the blurb on his book about the WOTR I should have expected
Dan Jones series on The Plantagenets would be a disappointment, and I
wasn't disappointed!
He managed to skip over King John and Magna Carta, concentrating on
Becket and the revolt of the sons in the first programme about Henry II;
there was no mention of Richard the Lion heart either, nor of William
Wallace in his story of Edward I and Scotland; Edward II was smothered,
no red hot poker, didn't happen, Dan assures us, and Piers Gaveston was
just Edward's mate, nothing else; his queen Isabelle invented hanging,
drawing and quartering for Hugh Despenser as punishment for his taking
her place in her marriage[sic!]; Richard II marched out to meet Wat
Tyler in chain mail and a face covering helmet, and was nothing but an
evil tyrant who had his own gang of bully boys, who frequently killed on
Richard's orders, including is own uncle Gloucester, and Richard II was
the last Plantagenet, as the usurpation of Henry IV broke the direct
line of descent from Henry II. Anarchy and civil war then began that
lasted until...well you know what comes next after his comments about
Richard III murdering his nephews!
So many assumptions, the Gaveston one left me slack jawed. While in the
rather weak "dramatised episodes" we had endless shots of Edward and
Gaveston just laughing together, the moment Isabelle's turning to
Mortimer was mentioned we were treated to naked writhings galore! Not
that I particularly wanted to see Gaveston and Edward naked, but naked
sex scenes were totally unnecessary, nothing more than exploitation.
If tv want young 'trendy' historians, there are many out there who know
their stuff. Who can forget the young Michael Woods enthusing about the
Anglo Saxons, who he knows so much about in depth, or more recently,
Cambridge academic Michael Scott and his brilliantly informed and
presented films on Ancient Greece? Neither used actors, yet kept
audiences gripped.
Dan Jones wears tight jeans and is in his early 30s. But his history is
at times dodgy, and he revels in the violence of the period he talks
about, above anything else.
I'd rather see Mary Beard and her crazy hair roaming around Pompeii and
Rome with knowledge oozing out of every pore, than this ridiculous young
man and his badly cast and cheaply costumed 'actors' telling tales in
Alison Weir research style!
rant over.
Paul

Great rant, Paul. Superb, in fact.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:38 AM
To:
Subject: Dan Jones
Having read the blurb on his book about the WOTR I should have expected
Dan Jones series on The Plantagenets would be a disappointment, and I
wasn't disappointed!He managed to skip over King John and Magna Carta,
concentrating on Becket and the revolt of the sons in the first programme
about Henry II; there was no mention of Richard the Lion heart either, nor
of William Wallace in his story of Edward I and Scotland; Edward II was
smothered, no red hot poker, didn't happen, Dan assures us, and Piers
Gaveston was just Edward's mate, nothing else; his queen Isabelle invented
hanging, drawing and quartering for Hugh Despenser as punishment for his
taking her place in her marriage[sic!]; Richard II marched out to meet Wat
Tyler in chain mail and a face covering helmet, and was nothing but an
evil tyrant who had his own gang of bully boys, who frequently killed on
Richard's orders, including is own uncle Gloucester, and Richard II was
the last Plantagenet, as the usurpation of Henry IV broke the direct
line of descent from Henry II. Anarchy and civil war then began that
lasted until...well you know what comes next after his comments about
Richard III murdering his nephews!So many assumptions, the Gaveston one
left me slack jawed. While in the rather weak "dramatised episodes" we had
endless shots of Edward and Gaveston just laughing together, the moment
Isabelle's turning to Mortimer was mentioned we were treated to naked
writhings galore! Not that I particularly wanted to see Gaveston and Edward
naked, but naked sex scenes were totally unnecessary, nothing more than
exploitation.If tv want young 'trendy' historians, there are many out there
who know their stuff. Who can forget the young Michael Woods enthusing about
the Anglo Saxons, who he knows so much about in depth, or more recently,
Cambridge academic Michael Scott and his brilliantly informed and
presented films on Ancient Greece? Neither used actors, yet kept
audiences gripped.Dan Jones wears tight jeans and is in his early 30s.
But his history is at times dodgy, and he revels in the violence of the
period he talks about, above anything else.I'd rather see Mary Beard and
her crazy hair roaming around Pompeii and Rome with knowledge oozing out of
every pore, than this ridiculous young man and his badly cast and cheaply
costumed 'actors' telling tales in Alison Weir research style!rant
over.Paul

Thanks :-)
Paul

On 19/12/2014 11:54, 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... [] wrote:
Great rant, Paul. Superb, in fact.
 
Sandra
=^..^=
 
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:38 AM
To:
Subject: Dan
Jones
 
 
Having read the blurb on his book about the WOTR I
should have expected
Dan Jones series on The Plantagenets would be a
disappointment, and I
wasn't disappointed!
He managed to skip over King John and Magna Carta,
concentrating on
Becket and the revolt of the sons in the first programme
about Henry II;
there was no mention of Richard the Lion heart either,
nor of William
Wallace in his story of Edward I and Scotland; Edward II
was smothered,
no red hot poker, didn't happen, Dan assures us, and
Piers Gaveston was
just Edward's mate, nothing else; his queen Isabelle
invented hanging,
drawing and quartering for Hugh Despenser as punishment
for his taking
her place in her marriage[sic!]; Richard II marched out
to meet Wat
Tyler in chain mail and a face covering helmet, and was
nothing but an
evil tyrant who had his own gang of bully boys, who
frequently killed on
Richard's orders, including is own uncle Gloucester, and
Richard II was
the last Plantagenet, as the usurpation of Henry IV
broke the direct
line of descent from Henry II. Anarchy and civil war
then began that
lasted until...well you know what comes next after his
comments about
Richard III murdering his nephews!
So many assumptions, the Gaveston one left me slack
jawed. While in the
rather weak "dramatised episodes" we had endless shots
of Edward and
Gaveston just laughing together, the moment Isabelle's
turning to
Mortimer was mentioned we were treated to naked
writhings galore! Not
that I particularly wanted to see Gaveston and Edward
naked, but naked
sex scenes were totally unnecessary, nothing more than
exploitation.
If tv want young 'trendy' historians, there are many out
there who know
their stuff. Who can forget the young Michael Woods
enthusing about the
Anglo Saxons, who he knows so much about in depth, or
more recently,
Cambridge academic Michael Scott and his brilliantly
informed and
presented films on Ancient Greece? Neither used actors,
yet kept
audiences gripped.
Dan Jones wears tight jeans and is in his early 30s. But
his history is
at times dodgy, and he revels in the violence of the
period he talks
about, above anything else.
I'd rather see Mary Beard and her crazy hair roaming
around Pompeii and
Rome with knowledge oozing out of every pore, than this
ridiculous young
man and his badly cast and cheaply costumed 'actors'
telling tales in
Alison Weir research style!
rant over.
Paul

You are so right, Paul.Judy Loyaulte me lie

Yep I agree. Cardboard history which belongs to 1950s school textbooks. I only watched Edward II, in which Bannockburn hardly got a mention. Best bit was the bluebells on Blacklow Hill. Rant on Paul! H

Thoroughly agree Paul..his tome on the Tower of London was the only book I have ever sent back to Amazon..I usually just pass the books I am disappointed in onto the Cats Protection League for them to make some cash..but this one..I was shocked and angry to read that Edward had suffered from a diseased jaw and this is why it can be proven beyond doubt that the human/rabbit bones in the urn are those of the princes as the jaw in the urn is diseased. Where in the name of God did Jones pick that up from? He is supposed to be a historian..Did he imagine it, dream it or was he hallucinating..it really is beyond belief and unforgivably sloppy. It takes very little research to find out that the only thing Dr Argentine reported Edward suffering from was depression and a fear for his future...pretty understandable when you consider the likes of MB was plotting to get him out of the Tower....which obviously would have been jumping out of the frying pan into the fire...Eileen

Eileen wrote: Thoroughly agree Paul..his tome on the Tower of London was the only book I have ever sent back to Amazon.That book about the Tower of London was actually by Nigel Jones, so Dan Jones isn't guilty of that atrocity! Even so, I wouldn't expect much better from him. I had a quick look at "The Hollow Crown" and while he didn't directly accuse Richard, he made it more or less clear that he thought he was guilty. In fact, there seemed to be very little discussion of it at all - about one or two paragraphs. Paul was spot on with this criticism, but I think we will be seeing quite a bit more of Dan Jones. He is a telegenic Alison Weir - even if they write drivel, they present in a way that draws people in.Nico On Friday, 19 December 2014, 17:30, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
Thoroughly agree Paul..his tome on the Tower of London was the only book I have ever sent back to Amazon..I usually just pass the books I am disappointed in onto the Cats Protection League for them to make some cash..but this one..I was shocked and angry to read that Edward had suffered from a diseased jaw and this is why it can be proven beyond doubt that the human/rabbit bones in the urn are those of the princes as the jaw in the urn is diseased. Where in the name of God did Jones pick that up from? He is supposed to be a historian..Did he imagine it, dream it or was he hallucinating..it really is beyond belief and unforgivably sloppy. It takes very little research to find out that the only thing Dr Argentine reported Edward suffering from was depression and a fear for his future...pretty understandable when you consider the likes of MB was plotting to get him out of the Tower....which obviously would have been jumping out of the frying pan into the fire...Eileen

Ooooooops.....Eileen

Dan Jones a telegenic Alison Weir, I like that :-)I read on another blog he could actually be Weir's and Desmond Seward's love child, though what' love got to do with it, heaven knows... Mac

Priceless.....



On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:05 PM, mac.thirty@... [] <> wrote:

Dan Jones a telegenic Alison Weir, I like that :-)
I read on another blog he could actually be Weir's and Desmond Seward's love child, though what' love got to do with it, heaven knows... Mac

I have to say that although Dan Jones is at times wild in his history; I did enjoy the series even though it made me cringe at times. He clearly loves the Plantagenets but for all of the wrong reasons and why have we only seen the violent bits? Yes there was plenty of gore and blood lust executions, but the years in between the beheadings and battles helped forge us into a nation. For example; we had the love hate relationship between Henry 111 and Simon de Montfort with several years gaps in between their fallings out and final showdown, but there was nothing about the standardization of the law courts by Henry III. There was nothing about his reform of the justice and court system, the setting up of curcuit judges to ensure that the Kings justice was administrated the same way all over the country and that judges heard pleas fairly. There was nothing about the start of the appeal and kings bench, the start of case law and so on; just a weak king who fell out with his best mate; the loss of his powers and the start of Parliament. Yes, start of Parliament great; but he did far more than this and that was ignored. And why just four parts of the bloodiest reigns possible? What about Edward III? What about John and Magna Carta? What about Edward I and Scotland and Wales? I know it was probably not his decision to limit the programme and there is more in the book; but again we get some mythological ideas repeated. And if anyone has read the sequal the Wars of the Roses; he definately believes Richard killed the Princes; ignoring the fact that we really do not have any evidence for this. An enjoyable romp; but not the best historical assessment in the world.

I have quite enjoyed Dan Jones programme on the Plantagenets but I wouldn't speak of him in the same breath or sentence as the wonderful Michael Wood.Strangely, a friend of mine sold her house to Michael Wood some years ago. Good job I didn't know her then, or I would have been round there!I find Dan Jones faintly annoying.JessFrom: poohlandevaSent: 20/12/2014 07:44To: Subject: Re: Dan Jones
I have to say that although Dan Jones is at times wild in his history; I did enjoy the series even though it made me cringe at times. He clearly loves the Plantagenets but for all of the wrong reasons and why have we only seen the violent bits? Yes there was plenty of gore and blood lust executions, but the years in between the beheadings and battles helped forge us into a nation. For example; we had the love hate relationship between Henry 111 and Simon de Montfort with several years gaps in between their fallings out and final showdown, but there was nothing about the standardization of the law courts by Henry III. There was nothing about his reform of the justice and court system, the setting up of curcuit judges to ensure that the Kings justice was administrated the same way all over the country and that judges heard pleas fairly. There was nothing about the start of the appeal and kings bench, the start of case law and so on; just a weak king who fell out with his best mate; the loss of his powers and the start of Parliament. Yes, start of Parliament great; but he did far more than this and that was ignored. And why just four parts of the bloodiest reigns possible? What about Edward III? What about John and Magna Carta? What about Edward I and Scotland and Wales? I know it was probably not his decision to limit the programme and there is more in the book; but again we get some mythological ideas repeated. And if anyone has read the sequal the Wars of the Roses; he definately believes Richard killed the Princes; ignoring the fact that we really do not have any evidence for this. An enjoyable romp; but not the best historical assessment in the world.

Quite enjoyed it Jess?
You can't know as much about the earlier Plantagenets as I, and some
others here, do then, else you'd have been tutting and screaming at
the screen all the way through, as I was!
Dan Jones is more than faintly annoying. He doesn't know enough
about the subject! I kept telling him to go back to the pub he'd
clearly just come out of, but he didn't seem to hear me!
I met Michael wood in the 80s when I tried to convince him to do a
film about the real Richard. he was thinking about it when the Beeb
asked him to go to and give his views on Troy. Two months in the
Meditteranean? So he left for the sun! Charming, charismatic man
though, and yes, very good looking:-)
Paul


On 20/12/2014 18:23, Janjovian
janjovian@... [] wrote:
I
have quite enjoyed Dan Jones programme on the Plantagenets but
I wouldn't speak of him in the same breath or sentence as the
wonderful Michael Wood.
Strangely, a friend of mine sold her house to Michael Wood
some years ago. Good job I didn't know her then, or I would
have been round there!

I find Dan Jones faintly annoying.

Jess
From: poohlandeva
Sent: 20/12/2014 07:44
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Dan Jones

 
I have to say that although Dan Jones is at times wild in his
history; I did enjoy the series even though it made me cringe
at times.  He clearly loves the Plantagenets but for all of
the wrong reasons and why have we only seen the violent bits?
 Yes there was plenty of gore and blood lust executions, but
the years in between the beheadings and battles helped forge
us into a nation.  For example; we had the love hate
relationship between Henry 111 and Simon de Montfort with
several years gaps in between their fallings out and final
showdown, but there was nothing about the standardization of
the law courts by Henry III.  There was nothing about his
reform of the justice and court system, the setting up of
curcuit judges to ensure that the Kings justice was
administrated the same way all over the country and that
judges heard pleas fairly.   There was nothing about the start
of the appeal and kings bench, the start of case law and so
on; just a weak king who fell out with his best mate; the loss
of his powers and the start of Parliament.  Yes, start of
Parliament great; but he did far more than this and that was
ignored.  And why just four parts of the bloodiest reigns
possible?  What about Edward III?  What about John and Magna
Carta?  What about Edward I and Scotland and Wales?  I know it
was probably not his decision to limit the programme and there
is more in the book; but again we get some mythological ideas
repeated.   And if anyone has read the sequal the Wars of the
Roses; he definately believes Richard killed the Princes;
ignoring the fact that we really do not have any evidence for
this.  An enjoyable romp; but not the best historical
assessment in the world.

Might Wood again be convinced to do the Richard programme! (Can't much blame him for going for some sun, but now our king is more news-worthy, there may be more incentive to stay home....)Judy Loyaulte me lie On Saturday, December 20, 2014 3:08 PM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:
Quite enjoyed it Jess?
You can't know as much about the earlier Plantagenets as I, and some
others here, do then, else you'd have been tutting and screaming at
the screen all the way through, as I was!
Dan Jones is more than faintly annoying. He doesn't know enough
about the subject! I kept telling him to go back to the pub he'd
clearly just come out of, but he didn't seem to hear me!
I met Michael wood in the 80s when I tried to convince him to do a
film about the real Richard. he was thinking about it when the Beeb
asked him to go to and give his views on Troy. Two months in the
Meditteranean? So he left for the sun! Charming, charismatic man
though, and yes, very good looking:-)
Paul


On 20/12/2014 18:23, Janjovian
janjovian@... [] wrote:
I
have quite enjoyed Dan Jones programme on the Plantagenets but
I wouldn't speak of him in the same breath or sentence as the
wonderful Michael Wood.
Strangely, a friend of mine sold her house to Michael Wood
some years ago. Good job I didn't know her then, or I would
have been round there!

I find Dan Jones faintly annoying.

Jess
From: poohlandeva
Sent: 20/12/2014 07:44
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Dan Jones

I have to say that although Dan Jones is at times wild in his
history; I did enjoy the series even though it made me cringe
at times. He clearly loves the Plantagenets but for all of
the wrong reasons and why have we only seen the violent bits?
Yes there was plenty of gore and blood lust executions, but
the years in between the beheadings and battles helped forge
us into a nation. For example; we had the love hate
relationship between Henry 111 and Simon de Montfort with
several years gaps in between their fallings out and final
showdown, but there was nothing about the standardization of
the law courts by Henry III. There was nothing about his
reform of the justice and court system, the setting up of
curcuit judges to ensure that the Kings justice was
administrated the same way all over the country and that
judges heard pleas fairly. There was nothing about the start
of the appeal and kings bench, the start of case law and so
on; just a weak king who fell out with his best mate; the loss
of his powers and the start of Parliament. Yes, start of
Parliament great; but he did far more than this and that was
ignored. And why just four parts of the bloodiest reigns
possible? What about Edward III? What about John and Magna
Carta? What about Edward I and Scotland and Wales? I know it
was probably not his decision to limit the programme and there
is more in the book; but again we get some mythological ideas
repeated. And if anyone has read the sequal the Wars of the
Roses; he definately believes Richard killed the Princes;
ignoring the fact that we really do not have any evidence for
this. An enjoyable romp; but not the best historical
assessment in the world.

I was trying to "damn with faint praise," Paul!However, you are right in that my knowledge of the early medieval period is very sparse.Until. Richard's body was discovered I had a complete lack of any detailed knowledge at all, although I did know of the society and its purpose.My historical knowledge, in any depth was confined to the social and economic history of the Industrial Revolution, which I studied for A level, (as an adult), the history of special needs education, which I did as a major project for my foundation degree, and the reading of a large library of books about the American Civil War.So even watching Dan Jones is informative for me, even if not in a good way.I did the six week on line course that the UoL ran this summer on "Life in the time of Richard III" which was very good, and my husband and I also visited Sutton Cheney, and the Bosworth Battlefield site.I am constantly reading about the period, and we also attended the societies recent Norwich study day, which was excellent.There is no way I can match the depth of knowledge of most of the members here, but I am working on it, and learning a lot!JessFrom: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []Sent: 20/12/2014 21:08To: Subject: Re: Re: Dan Jones

Quite enjoyed it Jess?
You can't know as much about the earlier Plantagenets as I, and some
others here, do then, else you'd have been tutting and screaming at
the screen all the way through, as I was!
Dan Jones is more than faintly annoying. He doesn't know enough
about the subject! I kept telling him to go back to the pub he'd
clearly just come out of, but he didn't seem to hear me!
I met Michael wood in the 80s when I tried to convince him to do a
film about the real Richard. he was thinking about it when the Beeb
asked him to go to and give his views on Troy. Two months in the
Meditteranean? So he left for the sun! Charming, charismatic man
though, and yes, very good looking:-)
Paul


On 20/12/2014 18:23, Janjovian
janjovian@... [] wrote:
I
have quite enjoyed Dan Jones programme on the Plantagenets but
I wouldn't speak of him in the same breath or sentence as the
wonderful Michael Wood.
Strangely, a friend of mine sold her house to Michael Wood
some years ago. Good job I didn't know her then, or I would
have been round there!

I find Dan Jones faintly annoying.

Jess
From: poohlandeva
Sent: 20/12/2014 07:44
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Dan Jones

I have to say that although Dan Jones is at times wild in his
history; I did enjoy the series even though it made me cringe
at times. He clearly loves the Plantagenets but for all of
the wrong reasons and why have we only seen the violent bits?
Yes there was plenty of gore and blood lust executions, but
the years in between the beheadings and battles helped forge
us into a nation. For example; we had the love hate
relationship between Henry 111 and Simon de Montfort with
several years gaps in between their fallings out and final
showdown, but there was nothing about the standardization of
the law courts by Henry III. There was nothing about his
reform of the justice and court system, the setting up of
curcuit judges to ensure that the Kings justice was
administrated the same way all over the country and that
judges heard pleas fairly. There was nothing about the start
of the appeal and kings bench, the start of case law and so
on; just a weak king who fell out with his best mate; the loss
of his powers and the start of Parliament. Yes, start of
Parliament great; but he did far more than this and that was
ignored. And why just four parts of the bloodiest reigns
possible? What about Edward III? What about John and Magna
Carta? What about Edward I and Scotland and Wales? I know it
was probably not his decision to limit the programme and there
is more in the book; but again we get some mythological ideas
repeated. And if anyone has read the sequal the Wars of the
Roses; he definately believes Richard killed the Princes;
ignoring the fact that we really do not have any evidence for
this. An enjoyable romp; but not the best historical
assessment in the world.

Absolutely agree Paul, I only watched the first programme and the sight of him strutting about, as if it was only about him, put me off completely. Then when I realized what he was leaving out I didn't bother to watch anymore. If you call yourself a historian you have to be sure of your facts and to do that you have to have lots of evidence and to obtain evidence you have to do lots of research!

Just watched programme on Roman Britain with Michael Jones.
In spite of the inclusion of presenter Christine Bleakely, who ITV
seem to shove into everything she knows nothing about in order it
seems to appeal more to Joe Public, Michael's knowledge and love of
his subject couldn't be contained!
What a difference from Mr Jones.
Paul

On 30/12/2014 20:11,
maryfriend@... [] wrote:
Absolutely agree Paul, I only watched the first programme and the
sight of him strutting about, as if it was only about him, put me
off completely. Then when I realized what he was leaving out I
didn't bother to watch anymore. If you call yourself a historian
you have to be sure of your facts and to do that you have to have
lots of evidence and to obtain evidence you have to do lots of
research!

Dan Jones continues his badly, if at all, researched, series on the WOTR next week when Richard comes into focus. Not the real Richard of course. Certainly not the Richard I know and love and respect.
Radio Times preview tells us that his take is stimulating, though he sees Richard's "actions following Edward's death as initially well-meaning, until the available opportunities narrowed and Richard became in blood stepped so far that he just kept wading.
To add to the villainy he uses an actor with a big black beard to make his Richard character look more villainous. I mean, as Dan Jones apparently says in this episode, Seriously? We all know so well that Richard had a big black beard, don't we? It's in all his portraits, right?
There should be a law against such programmes, and against such people calling himself an historian!
Paul the furious!

Absolutely spot on Paul.

I agree. The Department for Education (or whatever it is now) ought to ban them. You wouldn't be allowed to put a programme on full of misinformation on science or misquoting Shakespeare. I've often wondered why History seems a free for all. Perhaps it just isn't important enough? H From: "maryfriend@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 22:37 Subject: Re: Dan Jones
Absolutely spot on Paul.

And here we go again from Chris Skidmore's latest book due out in August'The last Plantagenet king remains one of England's most famous and controversial monarchs. There are few parallels in English history that can match the drama of Richard III's reign, witnessed in its full bloody intensity. A dedicated brother and loyal stalwart to the Yorkist dynasty for most of his early life, Richard's personality was forged in the tribulation of exile and the brutality of combat. An ambitious nobleman and successful general with a loyal following, Richard was a man who could claim to have achieved every ambition in life, except one. Within months of his brother Edward IV's early death, Richard stunned the nation when he seized the throne for himself and disinherited his nephews. Having put to death his rivals, Richard's two-year reign would become one of the most tumultuous in English history, ending in treachery and with his death on the battlefield at Bosworth. Chris Skidmore's biography strips back the legends that surround Richard's life and reign, and by returning to original manuscript evidence, he rediscovers the man as contemporaries saw him. Rather than vindicate or condemn, Skidmore's compelling study presents every facet of Richard's personality as it deserves to be seen: as one of the most important figures in medieval history, whose actions and behaviour underline the true nature of power in an age of great drama, upheaval and instability.'When will we ever get a decent biography? No doubt Skidmore will be dipping into More again. Mind you I think I know why, because it's hard - not something you can churn out to make money on the current bandwagon. And then there's the lovely Lucy Worsley on the Romanovs 'imagine if England had ever had a dynasty that lasted three hundred years.' Ever heard of the Plantagenets, Lucy? Why does no-one ever vet these things? I despair. H From: "maryfriend@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 22:37 Subject: Re: Dan Jones
Absolutely spot on Paul.

Chris Skidmore obviously didn't heed Livia Visser Fuchs' review of his previous book!!

That sounds like the publisher's blurb, rather than an extract.
----Original message----
From :
Date : 15/01/2016 - 11:44 (GMTST)
To :
Subject : Re: Re: Dan Jones







And here we go again from Chris Skidmore's latest book due out in August
'The last Plantagenet king remains one of England's most famous and controversial monarchs. There are few parallels in English history that can match the drama of Richard III's reign, witnessed in its full bloody intensity. A dedicated brother and loyal stalwart to the Yorkist dynasty for most of his early life, Richard's personality was forged in the tribulation of exile and the brutality of combat. An ambitious nobleman and successful general with a loyal following, Richard was a man who could claim to have achieved every ambit
ion in life, except one. Within months of his brother Edward IV's early death, Richard stunned the nation when he seized the throne for himself and disinherited his nephews. Having put to death his rivals, Richard's two-year reign would become one of the most tumultuous in English history, ending in treachery and with his death on the battlefield at Bosworth. Chris Skidmore's biography strips back the legends that surround Richard's life and reign, and by returning to original manuscript evidence, he rediscovers the man as contemporaries saw him. Rather than vindicate or condemn, Skidmore's compelling study presents every facet of Richard's personality as it deserves to be seen: as one of the most important figures in medieval history, whose actions and behaviour underline the true nature of power in an age of great drama, upheaval and instability.'
When will we ev
er get a decent biography? No doubt Skidmore will be dipping into More again. Mind you I think I know why, because it's hard - not something you can churn out to make money on the current bandwagon.
And then there's the lovely Lucy Worsley on the Romanovs 'imagine if England had ever had a dynasty that lasted three hundred years.' Ever heard of the Plantagenets, Lucy? Why does no-one ever vet these things? I despair. H



From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 22:37
Subject: Re: Dan Jones







Absolutely spot on Paul.

Yes. But I've read enough Skidmore to know he goes for More and the appropriate bits of Croyland of course From: "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 15 January 2016, 17:52 Subject: Re: Re: Dan Jones
That sounds like the publisher's blurb, rather than an extract.
----Original message----
From :
Date : 15/01/2016 - 11:44 (GMTST)
To :
Subject : Re: Re: Dan Jones







And here we go again from Chris Skidmore's latest book due out in August
'The last Plantagenet king remains one of England's most famous and controversial monarchs. There are few parallels in English history that can match the drama of Richard III's reign, witnessed in its full bloody intensity. A dedicated brother and loyal stalwart to the Yorkist dynasty for most of his early life, Richard's personality was forged in the tribulation of exile and the brutality of combat. An ambitious nobleman and successful general with a loyal following, Richard was a man who could claim to have achieved every ambit
ion in life, except one. Within months of his brother Edward IV's early death, Richard stunned the nation when he seized the throne for himself and disinherited his nephews. Having put to death his rivals, Richard's two-year reign would become one of the most tumultuous in English history, ending in treachery and with his death on the battlefield at Bosworth. Chris Skidmore's biography strips back the legends that surround Richard's life and reign, and by returning to original manuscript evidence, he rediscovers the man as contemporaries saw him. Rather than vindicate or condemn, Skidmore's compelling study presents every facet of Richard's personality as it deserves to be seen: as one of the most important figures in medieval history, whose actions and behaviour underline the true nature of power in an age of great drama, upheaval and instability.'
When will we ev
er get a decent biography? No doubt Skidmore will be dipping into More again. Mind you I think I know why, because it's hard - not something you can churn out to make money on the current bandwagon.
And then there's the lovely Lucy Worsley on the Romanovs 'imagine if England had ever had a dynasty that lasted three hundred years.' Ever heard of the Plantagenets, Lucy? Why does no-one ever vet these things? I despair. H



From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 22:37
Subject: Re: Dan Jones







Absolutely spot on Paul.

Is it legal to challenge Dan Jones to a duel? That is exactly how I felt having been seriously traumatized by his ridiculous series, especially his Shakespeare plus version of Richard lll last night. I braced myself having heard what he said last week, that the most notorious episode of the entire period was going to be looked at. Most notorious, really? I assume that he is refaring to the possible deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, which had it happened, would indeed be a terrible rime. However, I also get the feeling, that with his garbled telescopic version of history, that he sees the peaceful acceptance of the throne by Richard as notorious and the action of someone paranoid. He has been describing Towton and several other blood thirsty battles were several tens of thousands of people were brutally killed, after which many unarmed prisoners on both sides were killed, and yet, Richard iii executed, what four people he saw as dangerous, traitors and unstable influences, who may have been trying to kill him, and this is particularly notorious? I am not even certain why I am watching this series? Is this the best Channel Five or any TV show can do? How many historians have done good, well researched, well balanced studies of the Wars of the Roses, I lose count? Professor Bartlett did an excellent three part series on the Plantagenet Dynasty, there are plenty of books and experts, why can't we have a serious and educational series on the subject? Blood, guts and gore and executions make entertainment for brain dead viewers, but there is far more to history and history makers than that. For example we have tonight desperate Richard bullying the council to support him as Protector, trying to do the right thing, turning into a paranoid loner who gets rid of anyone who opposed him so he can scare the others into offering him the crown. Apart from this being a load of rubbish, nothing about Richard, the most stable person for the job, nothing about Richard iii the impartial law giver, loving father and husband, administration, being welcomed by crowds wherever he went on his progress, no, just Richard iii the enemy of the Woodville factions, determined to set them aside, control the boys and seize everything for himself like a crazy tyrant. Just ignore most of the sources, make the rest up, put in some blood, guts and gore and you have Dan Jones, NOT history. Surely BBC 3 or 4 or someone can do a counter balance, more interesting and informative series? We have been trying to rescue the reputation of Richard lll, now this series puts out the same nonsense as Shakespeare. Even if a historian believes Richard iii did kill his nephews, he or she still has a duty to keep their personal views out of the show or book and to state that there is no real evidence that Richard did anything. We dont know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. All of the sources and evidence should be presented. Personal views are not relevant. I almost thought Dan Jones was going to redeem himself when he stated that there is no evidence, no bodies and no witnesses. But he then states that Richard had every reason to kill them, they were too dangerous to have around, the young king was too independent, too loyal to the Woodville factions, too much of an intelligent opinionated young man, who had challenged Richard, he simply had to go. So Richard manipulated every excuse and was paranoid. So, no evidence that the boys were killed, but Richard had to get them out of the way. Sounds like Dan Jones is paranoid about his unsustainable theories falling apart if he even looks at the evidence with a neutral and critical eye.Channel 5 may give us this as alternative entertainment, but please, dont wrap it up as history, some one who wants to learn may be watching. I am livid.

Whilst duels are illegal nowadays, you can
always read this:
https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2016/01/21/bloody-kings-the-plantagenets-for-dummies/

From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of poohlandeva
Sent: 22 January 2016 01:44
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Dan Jones


Is it
legal to challenge Dan Jones to a duel? That is exactly how I felt having
been seriously traumatized by his ridiculous series, especially his Shakespeare
plus version of Richard lll last night. I braced myself having heard what
he said last week, that the most notorious episode of the entire period was
going to be looked at. Most notorious, really? I assume that he is
refaring to the possible deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, which had it
happened, would indeed be a terrible rime. However, I also get the
feeling, that with his garbled telescopic version of history, that he sees the
peaceful acceptance of the throne by Richard as notorious and the action of
someone paranoid. He has been describing Towton and several other blood
thirsty battles were several tens of thousands of people were brutally killed,
after which many unarmed prisoners on both sides were killed, and yet, Richard
iii executed, what four people he saw a s dangerous, traitors and unstable
influences, who may have been trying to kill him, and this is particularly
notorious?

I am not even certain why I am watching this series? Is this the
best Channel Five or any TV show can do? How many historians have done
good, well researched, well balanced studies of the Wars of the Roses, I lose
count? Professor Bartlett did an excellent three part series on the
Plantagenet Dynasty, there are plenty of books and experts, why can't we
have a serious and educational series on the subject? Blood, guts and
gore and executions make entertainment for brain dead viewers, but there is far
more to history and history makers than that. For example we have tonight
desperate Richard bullying the council to support him as Protector, trying to
do the right thing, turning into a paranoid loner who gets rid of anyone who
opposed him so he can scare the others into offering him the crown. Ap
art from this being a load of rubbish, nothing about Richard, the most stable
person for the job, nothing about Richard iii the impartial law giver, loving
father and husband, administration, being welcomed by crowds wherever he went
on his progress, no, just Richard iii the enemy of the Woodville factions,
determined to set them aside, control the boys and seize everything for himself
like a crazy tyrant. Just ignore most of the sources, make the rest up, put in
some blood, guts and gore and you have Dan Jones, NOT history.

Surely BBC 3 or 4 or someone can do a counter balance, more interesting
and informative series? We have been trying to rescue the reputation of
Richard lll, now this series puts out the same nonsense as Shakespeare.
Even if a historian believes Richard iii did kill his nephews, he or she
still has a duty to keep their personal views out of the show or book and to
state that there is no real evidence that Richard did any thing. We dont
know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. All of the sources and
evidence should be presented. Personal views are not relevant. I
almost thought Dan Jones was going to redeem himself when he stated that there
is no evidence, no bodies and no witnesses. But he then states that
Richard had every reason to kill them, they were too dangerous to have around,
the young king was too independent, too loyal to the Woodville factions, too
much of an intelligent opinionated young man, who had challenged Richard, he
simply had to go. So Richard manipulated every excuse and was paranoid.
So, no evidence that the boys were killed, but Richard had to get
them out of the way. Sounds like Dan Jones is paranoid about his
unsustainable theories falling apart if he even looks at the evidence with a
neutral and critical eye.

Channel 5 may give us this as alternative entertainment, but please,
dont wrap it up as history, some one who wants to learn may be watching.
I am livid.

As you often do, you have written the posting I wish I had done.Please don't feel alone in being livid. I was ranting at the TV too.Dan Jones seemed to be making history up as he went along as far as I was concerned.Where was his evidence for his statements.It was ridiculous!JessFrom: poohlandevaSent: 22/01/2016 01:44To: Subject: Re: Dan Jones
Is it legal to challenge Dan Jones to a duel? That is exactly how I felt having been seriously traumatized by his ridiculous series, especially his Shakespeare plus version of Richard lll last night. I braced myself having heard what he said last week, that the most notorious episode of the entire period was going to be looked at. Most notorious, really? I assume that he is refaring to the possible deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, which had it happened, would indeed be a terrible rime. However, I also get the feeling, that with his garbled telescopic version of history, that he sees the peaceful acceptance of the throne by Richard as notorious and the action of someone paranoid. He has been describing Towton and several other blood thirsty battles were several tens of thousands of people were brutally killed, after which many unarmed prisoners on both sides were killed, and yet, Richard iii executed, what four people he saw as dangerous, traitors and unstable influences, who may have been trying to kill him, and this is particularly notorious? I am not even certain why I am watching this series? Is this the best Channel Five or any TV show can do? How many historians have done good, well researched, well balanced studies of the Wars of the Roses, I lose count? Professor Bartlett did an excellent three part series on the Plantagenet Dynasty, there are plenty of books and experts, why can't we have a serious and educational series on the subject? Blood, guts and gore and executions make entertainment for brain dead viewers, but there is far more to history and history makers than that. For example we have tonight desperate Richard bullying the council to support him as Protector, trying to do the right thing, turning into a paranoid loner who gets rid of anyone who opposed him so he can scare the others into offering him the crown. Apart from this being a load of rubbish, nothing about Richard, the most stable person for the job, nothing about Richard iii the impartial law giver, loving father and husband, administration, being welcomed by crowds wherever he went on his progress, no, just Richard iii the enemy of the Woodville factions, determined to set them aside, control the boys and seize everything for himself like a crazy tyrant. Just ignore most of the sources, make the rest up, put in some blood, guts and gore and you have Dan Jones, NOT history. Surely BBC 3 or 4 or someone can do a counter balance, more interesting and informative series? We have been trying to rescue the reputation of Richard lll, now this series puts out the same nonsense as Shakespeare. Even if a historian believes Richard iii did kill his nephews, he or she still has a duty to keep their personal views out of the show or book and to state that there is no real evidence that Richard did anything. We dont know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. All of the sources and evidence should be presented. Personal views are not relevant. I almost thought Dan Jones was going to redeem himself when he stated that there is no evidence, no bodies and no witnesses. But he then states that Richard had every reason to kill them, they were too dangerous to have around, the young king was too independent, too loyal to the Woodville factions, too much of an intelligent opinionated young man, who had challenged Richard, he simply had to go. So Richard manipulated every excuse and was paranoid. So, no evidence that the boys were killed, but Richard had to get them out of the way. Sounds like Dan Jones is paranoid about his unsustainable theories falling apart if he even looks at the evidence with a neutral and critical eye.Channel 5 may give us this as alternative entertainment, but please, dont wrap it up as history, some one who wants to learn may be watching. I am livid.

Which is why I purposely didn't watch it. I knew it would make me cross. Lets hope not many others watched it either - it wasn't well advertised.I liked the Stephen article!! H From: "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 22 January 2016, 14:15 Subject: RE: Re: Dan Jones
As you often do, you have written the posting I wish I had done.Please don't feel alone in being livid. I was ranting at the TV too.Dan Jones seemed to be making history up as he went along as far as I was concerned.Where was his evidence for his statements.It was ridiculous!JessFrom: poohlandevaSent: 22/01/2016 01:44To: Subject: Re: Dan Jones
Is it legal to challenge Dan Jones to a duel? That is exactly how I felt having been seriously traumatized by his ridiculous series, especially his Shakespeare plus version of Richard lll last night. I braced myself having heard what he said last week, that the most notorious episode of the entire period was going to be looked at. Most notorious, really? I assume that he is refaring to the possible deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, which had it happened, would indeed be a terrible rime. However, I also get the feeling, that with his garbled telescopic version of history, that he sees the peaceful acceptance of the throne by Richard as notorious and the action of someone paranoid. He has been describing Towton and several other blood thirsty battles were several tens of thousands of people were brutally killed, after which many unarmed prisoners on both sides were killed, and yet, Richard iii executed, what four people he saw as dangerous, traitors and unstable influences, who may have been trying to kill him, and this is particularly notorious? I am not even certain why I am watching this series? Is this the best Channel Five or any TV show can do? How many historians have done good, well researched, well balanced studies of the Wars of the Roses, I lose count? Professor Bartlett did an excellent three part series on the Plantagenet Dynasty, there are plenty of books and experts, why can't we have a serious and educational series on the subject? Blood, guts and gore and executions make entertainment for brain dead viewers, but there is far more to history and history makers than that. For example we have tonight desperate Richard bullying the council to support him as Protector, trying to do the right thing, turning into a paranoid loner who gets rid of anyone who opposed him so he can scare the others into offering him the crown. Apart from this being a load of rubbish, nothing about Richard, the most stable person for the job, nothing about Richard iii the impartial law giver, loving father and husband, administration, being welcomed by crowds wherever he went on his progress, no, just Richard iii the enemy of the Woodville factions, determined to set them aside, control the boys and seize everything for himself like a crazy tyrant. Just ignore most of the sources, make the rest up, put in some blood, guts and gore and you have Dan Jones, NOT history. Surely BBC 3 or 4 or someone can do a counter balance, more interesting and informative series? We have been trying to rescue the reputation of Richard lll, now this series puts out the same nonsense as Shakespeare. Even if a historian believes Richard iii did kill his nephews, he or she still has a duty to keep their personal views out of the show or book and to state that there is no real evidence that Richard did anything. We dont know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. All of the sources and evidence should be presented. Personal views are not relevant. I almost thought Dan Jones was going to redeem himself when he stated that there is no evidence, no bodies and no witnesses. But he then states that Richard had every reason to kill them, they were too dangerous to have around, the young king was too independent, too loyal to the Woodville factions, too much of an intelligent opinionated young man, who had challenged Richard, he simply had to go. So Richard manipulated every excuse and was paranoid. So, no evidence that the boys were killed, but Richard had to get them out of the way. Sounds like Dan Jones is paranoid about his unsustainable theories falling apart if he even looks at the evidence with a neutral and critical eye.Channel 5 may give us this as alternative entertainment, but please, dont wrap it up as history, some one who wants to learn may be watching. I am livid.

Great article Stephen ... I can imagine something like that behind the scenes of a Dan Jones production.I finally caught up with this over the weekend. On the positive side the producers have reduced Jones' posing and showing off his tattoos, but his ego is in even more overdrive than the in the Plantagenet series. Dan knows exactly what was going through Richard's mind 500 years ago! Somehow in his infinite wisdom, he conclusively knows the answers to what the rest of us are still debating, and why it all happened! Richard had to murder the Princes and Hastings, because he was so insecure, and no other theories discussed. And Buckingham was just glossed over. Can't have that too much substance, I suppose; it would reduce DJ's camera time. Has this man never been taught the difference between fact and personal opinion?As for the dumbing down, words fail me. I hadn't been aware that Elizabeth Woodville was chav. It doesn't work though. If he thinks he is getting down there with the kids, he is mistaken. Younger audiences who watch history programmes want to be informed not patronized. If they are not intelligent, they won't be watching anyway. As for the background drama, the actress playing Elizabeth Woodville looked more like her than the woman who played her with a Swedish accent in the White Queen, but why where a lot of the men dressed in Chaucer/Bolingbroke era costumes? In a good documentary, however, you shouldn't really need it, but without it, this series would be unwatchable and Jones' ignorance would shine though.Dan Jones shouldn't be taken too seriously, but he is part of a depressing trend where the lines between fact and conjecture are getting dangerously blurred. Unfortunately, he is not alone.Nico On Friday, 22 January 2016, 16:58, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Which is why I purposely didn't watch it. I knew it would make me cross. Lets hope not many others watched it either - it wasn't well advertised.I liked the Stephen article!! H From: "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 22 January 2016, 14:15 Subject: RE: Re: Dan Jones
As you often do, you have written the posting I wish I had done.Please don't feel alone in being livid. I was ranting at the TV too.Dan Jones seemed to be making history up as he went along as far as I was concerned.Where was his evidence for his statements.It was ridiculous!JessFrom: poohlandevaSent: 22/01/2016 01:44To: Subject: Re: Dan Jones
Is it legal to challenge Dan Jones to a duel? That is exactly how I felt having been seriously traumatized by his ridiculous series, especially his Shakespeare plus version of Richard lll last night. I braced myself having heard what he said last week, that the most notorious episode of the entire period was going to be looked at. Most notorious, really? I assume that he is refaring to the possible deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, which had it happened, would indeed be a terrible rime. However, I also get the feeling, that with his garbled telescopic version of history, that he sees the peaceful acceptance of the throne by Richard as notorious and the action of someone paranoid. He has been describing Towton and several other blood thirsty battles were several tens of thousands of people were brutally killed, after which many unarmed prisoners on both sides were killed, and yet, Richard iii executed, what four people he saw as dangerous, traitors and unstable influences, who may have been trying to kill him, and this is particularly notorious? I am not even certain why I am watching this series? Is this the best Channel Five or any TV show can do? How many historians have done good, well researched, well balanced studies of the Wars of the Roses, I lose count? Professor Bartlett did an excellent three part series on the Plantagenet Dynasty, there are plenty of books and experts, why can't we have a serious and educational series on the subject? Blood, guts and gore and executions make entertainment for brain dead viewers, but there is far more to history and history makers than that. For example we have tonight desperate Richard bullying the council to support him as Protector, trying to do the right thing, turning into a paranoid loner who gets rid of anyone who opposed him so he can scare the others into offering him the crown. Apart from this being a load of rubbish, nothing about Richard, the most stable person for the job, nothing about Richard iii the impartial law giver, loving father and husband, administration, being welcomed by crowds wherever he went on his progress, no, just Richard iii the enemy of the Woodville factions, determined to set them aside, control the boys and seize everything for himself like a crazy tyrant. Just ignore most of the sources, make the rest up, put in some blood, guts and gore and you have Dan Jones, NOT history. Surely BBC 3 or 4 or someone can do a counter balance, more interesting and informative series? We have been trying to rescue the reputation of Richard lll, now this series puts out the same nonsense as Shakespeare. Even if a historian believes Richard iii did kill his nephews, he or she still has a duty to keep their personal views out of the show or book and to state that there is no real evidence that Richard did anything. We dont know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. All of the sources and evidence should be presented. Personal views are not relevant. I almost thought Dan Jones was going to redeem himself when he stated that there is no evidence, no bodies and no witnesses. But he then states that Richard had every reason to kill them, they were too dangerous to have around, the young king was too independent, too loyal to the Woodville factions, too much of an intelligent opinionated young man, who had challenged Richard, he simply had to go. So Richard manipulated every excuse and was paranoid. So, no evidence that the boys were killed, but Richard had to get them out of the way. Sounds like Dan Jones is paranoid about his unsustainable theories falling apart if he even looks at the evidence with a neutral and critical eye.Channel 5 may give us this as alternative entertainment, but please, dont wrap it up as history, some one who wants to learn may be watching. I am livid.

I agree very much with what you say about intelligent young people Nico.Incidentally, why does nobody ever point out in these programmes that there is incontrovertible proof that Edward IV actually seized the throne - and murdered Henry VI? Or is that suddenly all right because Henry was a bit older and a bit weak in the head? And was it all right to starve Richard II? Seems some historians have very dubious values. If Richard had been the typical ruthless medieval king he would have killed (and displayed) the boys. And because this is the one case where we have no proof he must be the villain. My one point of agreement with David Starkey, and I'd never thought I'd find one, is that Richard's failure was that he died.I live in hope that there is some intelligent life out there. H From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016, 14:44 Subject: Re: Re: Dan Jones
Great article Stephen ... I can imagine something like that behind the scenes of a Dan Jones production.I finally caught up with this over the weekend. On the positive side the producers have reduced Jones' posing and showing off his tattoos, but his ego is in even more overdrive than the in the Plantagenet series. Dan knows exactly what was going through Richard's mind 500 years ago! Somehow in his infinite wisdom, he conclusively knows the answers to what the rest of us are still debating, and why it all happened! Richard had to murder the Princes and Hastings, because he was so insecure, and no other theories discussed. And Buckingham was just glossed over. Can't have that too much substance, I suppose; it would reduce DJ's camera time. Has this man never been taught the difference between fact and personal opinion?As for the dumbing down, words fail me. I hadn't been aware that Elizabeth Woodville was chav. It doesn't work though. If he thinks he is getting down there with the kids, he is mistaken. Younger audiences who watch history programmes want to be informed not patronized. If they are not intelligent, they won't be watching anyway. As for the background drama, the actress playing Elizabeth Woodville looked more like her than the woman who played her with a Swedish accent in the White Queen, but why where a lot of the men dressed in Chaucer/Bolingbroke era costumes? In a good documentary, however, you shouldn't really need it, but without it, this series would be unwatchable and Jones' ignorance would shine though.Dan Jones shouldn't be taken too seriously, but he is part of a depressing trend where the lines between fact and conjecture are getting dangerously blurred. Unfortunately, he is not alone.Nico On Friday, 22 January 2016, 16:58, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Which is why I purposely didn't watch it. I knew it would make me cross. Lets hope not many others watched it either - it wasn't well advertised.I liked the Stephen article!! H From: "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 22 January 2016, 14:15 Subject: RE: Re: Dan Jones
As you often do, you have written the posting I wish I had done.Please don't feel alone in being livid. I was ranting at the TV too.Dan Jones seemed to be making history up as he went along as far as I was concerned.Where was his evidence for his statements.It was ridiculous!JessFrom: poohlandevaSent: 22/01/2016 01:44To: Subject: Re: Dan Jones
Is it legal to challenge Dan Jones to a duel? That is exactly how I felt having been seriously traumatized by his ridiculous series, especially his Shakespeare plus version of Richard lll last night. I braced myself having heard what he said last week, that the most notorious episode of the entire period was going to be looked at. Most notorious, really? I assume that he is refaring to the possible deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, which had it happened, would indeed be a terrible rime. However, I also get the feeling, that with his garbled telescopic version of history, that he sees the peaceful acceptance of the throne by Richard as notorious and the action of someone paranoid. He has been describing Towton and several other blood thirsty battles were several tens of thousands of people were brutally killed, after which many unarmed prisoners on both sides were killed, and yet, Richard iii executed, what four people he saw as dangerous, traitors and unstable influences, who may have been trying to kill him, and this is particularly notorious? I am not even certain why I am watching this series? Is this the best Channel Five or any TV show can do? How many historians have done good, well researched, well balanced studies of the Wars of the Roses, I lose count? Professor Bartlett did an excellent three part series on the Plantagenet Dynasty, there are plenty of books and experts, why can't we have a serious and educational series on the subject? Blood, guts and gore and executions make entertainment for brain dead viewers, but there is far more to history and history makers than that. For example we have tonight desperate Richard bullying the council to support him as Protector, trying to do the right thing, turning into a paranoid loner who gets rid of anyone who opposed him so he can scare the others into offering him the crown. Apart from this being a load of rubbish, nothing about Richard, the most stable person for the job, nothing about Richard iii the impartial law giver, loving father and husband, administration, being welcomed by crowds wherever he went on his progress, no, just Richard iii the enemy of the Woodville factions, determined to set them aside, control the boys and seize everything for himself like a crazy tyrant. Just ignore most of the sources, make the rest up, put in some blood, guts and gore and you have Dan Jones, NOT history. Surely BBC 3 or 4 or someone can do a counter balance, more interesting and informative series? We have been trying to rescue the reputation of Richard lll, now this series puts out the same nonsense as Shakespeare. Even if a historian believes Richard iii did kill his nephews, he or she still has a duty to keep their personal views out of the show or book and to state that there is no real evidence that Richard did anything. We dont know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. All of the sources and evidence should be presented. Personal views are not relevant. I almost thought Dan Jones was going to redeem himself when he stated that there is no evidence, no bodies and no witnesses. But he then states that Richard had every reason to kill them, they were too dangerous to have around, the young king was too independent, too loyal to the Woodville factions, too much of an intelligent opinionated young man, who had challenged Richard, he simply had to go. So Richard manipulated every excuse and was paranoid. So, no evidence that the boys were killed, but Richard had to get them out of the way. Sounds like Dan Jones is paranoid about his unsustainable theories falling apart if he even looks at the evidence with a neutral and critical eye.Channel 5 may give us this as alternative entertainment, but please, dont wrap it up as history, some one who wants to learn may be watching. I am livid.

Hilary,I agree broadly with your view, but there is a case in which the throne changed hands and the alternative claimant disappeared without being displayed or any announcement being made. Arthur of Brittany - who, by the strict rules of primogeniture should have become king on the death of Richard I, simply disappeared. The parallels with the Princes are quite striking. There is even a legend of a squeamish assassin. It is not entirely obvious why John acted this way, but no body ever appeared.Kind regardsDavidSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Monday, January 25, 2016, 15:03, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I agree very much with what you say about intelligent young people Nico.Incidentally, why does nobody ever point out in these programmes that there is incontrovertible proof that Edward IV actually seized the throne - and murdered Henry VI? Or is that suddenly all right because Henry was a bit older and a bit weak in the head? And was it all right to starve Richard II? Seems some historians have very dubious values. If Richard had been the typical ruthless medieval king he would have killed (and displayed) the boys. And because this is the one case where we have no proof he must be the villain. My one point of agreement with David Starkey, and I'd never thought I'd find one, is that Richard's failure was that he died.I live in hope that there is some intelligent life out there. H From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016, 14:44 Subject: Re: Re: Dan Jones
Great article Stephen ... I can imagine something like that behind the scenes of a Dan Jones production.I finally caught up with this over the weekend. On the positive side the producers have reduced Jones' posing and showing off his tattoos, but his ego is in even more overdrive than the in the Plantagenet series. Dan knows exactly what was going through Richard's mind 500 years ago! Somehow in his infinite wisdom, he conclusively knows the answers to what the rest of us are still debating, and why it all happened! Richard had to murder the Princes and Hastings, because he was so insecure, and no other theories discussed. And Buckingham was just glossed over. Can't have that too much substance, I suppose; it would reduce DJ's camera time. Has this man never been taught the difference between fact and personal opinion?As for the dumbing down, words fail me. I hadn't been aware that Elizabeth Woodville was chav. It doesn't work though. If he thinks he is getting down there with the kids, he is mistaken. Younger audiences who watch history programmes want to be informed not patronized. If they are not intelligent, they won't be watching anyway. As for the background drama, the actress playing Elizabeth Woodville looked more like her than the woman who played her with a Swedish accent in the White Queen, but why where a lot of the men dressed in Chaucer/Bolingbroke era costumes? In a good documentary, however, you shouldn't really need it, but without it, this series would be unwatchable and Jones' ignorance would shine though.Dan Jones shouldn't be taken too seriously, but he is part of a depressing trend where the lines between fact and conjecture are getting dangerously blurred. Unfortunately, he is not alone.Nico On Friday, 22 January 2016, 16:58, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Which is why I purposely didn't watch it. I knew it would make me cross. Lets hope not many others watched it either - it wasn't well advertised.I liked the Stephen article!! H From: "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 22 January 2016, 14:15 Subject: RE: Re: Dan Jones
As you often do, you have written the posting I wish I had done.Please don't feel alone in being livid. I was ranting at the TV too.Dan Jones seemed to be making history up as he went along as far as I was concerned.Where was his evidence for his statements.It was ridiculous!JessFrom: poohlandevaSent: 22/01/2016 01:44To: Subject: Re: Dan Jones
Is it legal to challenge Dan Jones to a duel? That is exactly how I felt having been seriously traumatized by his ridiculous series, especially his Shakespeare plus version of Richard lll last night. I braced myself having heard what he said last week, that the most notorious episode of the entire period was going to be looked at. Most notorious, really? I assume that he is refaring to the possible deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, which had it happened, would indeed be a terrible rime. However, I also get the feeling, that with his garbled telescopic version of history, that he sees the peaceful acceptance of the throne by Richard as notorious and the action of someone paranoid. He has been describing Towton and several other blood thirsty battles were several tens of thousands of people were brutally killed, after which many unarmed prisoners on both sides were killed, and yet, Richard iii executed, what four people he saw as dangerous, traitors and unstable influences, who may have been trying to kill him, and this is particularly notorious? I am not even certain why I am watching this series? Is this the best Channel Five or any TV show can do? How many historians have done good, well researched, well balanced studies of the Wars of the Roses, I lose count? Professor Bartlett did an excellent three part series on the Plantagenet Dynasty, there are plenty of books and experts, why can't we have a serious and educational series on the subject? Blood, guts and gore and executions make entertainment for brain dead viewers, but there is far more to history and history makers than that. For example we have tonight desperate Richard bullying the council to support him as Protector, trying to do the right thing, turning into a paranoid loner who gets rid of anyone who opposed him so he can scare the others into offering him the crown. Apart from this being a load of rubbish, nothing about Richard, the most stable person for the job, nothing about Richard iii the impartial law giver, loving father and husband, administration, being welcomed by crowds wherever he went on his progress, no, just Richard iii the enemy of the Woodville factions, determined to set them aside, control the boys and seize everything for himself like a crazy tyrant. Just ignore most of the sources, make the rest up, put in some blood, guts and gore and you have Dan Jones, NOT history. Surely BBC 3 or 4 or someone can do a counter balance, more interesting and informative series? We have been trying to rescue the reputation of Richard lll, now this series puts out the same nonsense as Shakespeare. Even if a historian believes Richard iii did kill his nephews, he or she still has a duty to keep their personal views out of the show or book and to state that there is no real evidence that Richard did anything. We dont know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. All of the sources and evidence should be presented. Personal views are not relevant. I almost thought Dan Jones was going to redeem himself when he stated that there is no evidence, no bodies and no witnesses. But he then states that Richard had every reason to kill them, they were too dangerous to have around, the young king was too independent, too loyal to the Woodville factions, too much of an intelligent opinionated young man, who had challenged Richard, he simply had to go. So Richard manipulated every excuse and was paranoid. So, no evidence that the boys were killed, but Richard had to get them out of the way. Sounds like Dan Jones is paranoid about his unsustainable theories falling apart if he even looks at the evidence with a neutral and critical eye.Channel 5 may give us this as alternative entertainment, but please, dont wrap it up as history, some one who wants to learn may be watching. I am livid.

Yes David, John is another one who needs a re-examination, but not by Dan Jones or David Starkey! The other thing is of course that by the age of 12 a medieval child was a young adult, in fact all children were miniature adults, so if Richard had had them killed it wouldn't in medieval terms have been that remarkable. The fact that he didn't some might claim was an act of weakness. And if he had he would have displayed the bodies, as did all his predecessors (except John!) . No point in doing it otherwise. Which is why I still think he didn't. H From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <> To: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2016, 15:08 Subject: Re: Re: Dan Jones
Hilary,I agree broadly with your view, but there is a case in which the throne changed hands and the alternative claimant disappeared without being displayed or any announcement being made. Arthur of Brittany - who, by the strict rules of primogeniture should have become king on the death of Richard I, simply disappeared. The parallels with the Princes are quite striking. There is even a legend of a squeamish assassin. It is not entirely obvious why John acted this way, but no body ever appeared.Kind regardsDavidSent from Yahoo Mail for iPadOn Monday, January 25, 2016, 15:03, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I agree very much with what you say about intelligent young people Nico.Incidentally, why does nobody ever point out in these programmes that there is incontrovertible proof that Edward IV actually seized the throne - and murdered Henry VI? Or is that suddenly all right because Henry was a bit older and a bit weak in the head? And was it all right to starve Richard II? Seems some historians have very dubious values. If Richard had been the typical ruthless medieval king he would have killed (and displayed) the boys. And because this is the one case where we have no proof he must be the villain. My one point of agreement with David Starkey, and I'd never thought I'd find one, is that Richard's failure was that he died.I live in hope that there is some intelligent life out there. H From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016, 14:44 Subject: Re: Re: Dan Jones
Great article Stephen ... I can imagine something like that behind the scenes of a Dan Jones production.I finally caught up with this over the weekend. On the positive side the producers have reduced Jones' posing and showing off his tattoos, but his ego is in even more overdrive than the in the Plantagenet series. Dan knows exactly what was going through Richard's mind 500 years ago! Somehow in his infinite wisdom, he conclusively knows the answers to what the rest of us are still debating, and why it all happened! Richard had to murder the Princes and Hastings, because he was so insecure, and no other theories discussed. And Buckingham was just glossed over. Can't have that too much substance, I suppose; it would reduce DJ's camera time. Has this man never been taught the difference between fact and personal opinion?As for the dumbing down, words fail me. I hadn't been aware that Elizabeth Woodville was chav. It doesn't work though. If he thinks he is getting down there with the kids, he is mistaken. Younger audiences who watch history programmes want to be informed not patronized. If they are not intelligent, they won't be watching anyway. As for the background drama, the actress playing Elizabeth Woodville looked more like her than the woman who played her with a Swedish accent in the White Queen, but why where a lot of the men dressed in Chaucer/Bolingbroke era costumes? In a good documentary, however, you shouldn't really need it, but without it, this series would be unwatchable and Jones' ignorance would shine though.Dan Jones shouldn't be taken too seriously, but he is part of a depressing trend where the lines between fact and conjecture are getting dangerously blurred. Unfortunately, he is not alone.Nico On Friday, 22 January 2016, 16:58, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Which is why I purposely didn't watch it. I knew it would make me cross. Lets hope not many others watched it either - it wasn't well advertised.I liked the Stephen article!! H From: "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 22 January 2016, 14:15 Subject: RE: Re: Dan Jones
As you often do, you have written the posting I wish I had done.Please don't feel alone in being livid. I was ranting at the TV too.Dan Jones seemed to be making history up as he went along as far as I was concerned.Where was his evidence for his statements.It was ridiculous!JessFrom: poohlandevaSent: 22/01/2016 01:44To: Subject: Re: Dan Jones
Is it legal to challenge Dan Jones to a duel? That is exactly how I felt having been seriously traumatized by his ridiculous series, especially his Shakespeare plus version of Richard lll last night. I braced myself having heard what he said last week, that the most notorious episode of the entire period was going to be looked at. Most notorious, really? I assume that he is refaring to the possible deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, which had it happened, would indeed be a terrible rime. However, I also get the feeling, that with his garbled telescopic version of history, that he sees the peaceful acceptance of the throne by Richard as notorious and the action of someone paranoid. He has been describing Towton and several other blood thirsty battles were several tens of thousands of people were brutally killed, after which many unarmed prisoners on both sides were killed, and yet, Richard iii executed, what four people he saw as dangerous, traitors and unstable influences, who may have been trying to kill him, and this is particularly notorious? I am not even certain why I am watching this series? Is this the best Channel Five or any TV show can do? How many historians have done good, well researched, well balanced studies of the Wars of the Roses, I lose count? Professor Bartlett did an excellent three part series on the Plantagenet Dynasty, there are plenty of books and experts, why can't we have a serious and educational series on the subject? Blood, guts and gore and executions make entertainment for brain dead viewers, but there is far more to history and history makers than that. For example we have tonight desperate Richard bullying the council to support him as Protector, trying to do the right thing, turning into a paranoid loner who gets rid of anyone who opposed him so he can scare the others into offering him the crown. Apart from this being a load of rubbish, nothing about Richard, the most stable person for the job, nothing about Richard iii the impartial law giver, loving father and husband, administration, being welcomed by crowds wherever he went on his progress, no, just Richard iii the enemy of the Woodville factions, determined to set them aside, control the boys and seize everything for himself like a crazy tyrant. Just ignore most of the sources, make the rest up, put in some blood, guts and gore and you have Dan Jones, NOT history. Surely BBC 3 or 4 or someone can do a counter balance, more interesting and informative series? We have been trying to rescue the reputation of Richard lll, now this series puts out the same nonsense as Shakespeare. Even if a historian believes Richard iii did kill his nephews, he or she still has a duty to keep their personal views out of the show or book and to state that there is no real evidence that Richard did anything. We dont know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. All of the sources and evidence should be presented. Personal views are not relevant. I almost thought Dan Jones was going to redeem himself when he stated that there is no evidence, no bodies and no witnesses. But he then states that Richard had every reason to kill them, they were too dangerous to have around, the young king was too independent, too loyal to the Woodville factions, too much of an intelligent opinionated young man, who had challenged Richard, he simply had to go. So Richard manipulated every excuse and was paranoid. So, no evidence that the boys were killed, but Richard had to get them out of the way. Sounds like Dan Jones is paranoid about his unsustainable theories falling apart if he even looks at the evidence with a neutral and critical eye.Channel 5 may give us this as alternative entertainment, but please, dont wrap it up as history, some one who wants to learn may be watching. I am livid.

Actually, the normal cut-off age for childhood in the strictest sense was 14. Young people were rarely convicted of crimes before that age. Remember how Henry VII used Lambert Simnel's youth to explain why he didn't hold him criminally responsible - whatever Lambert's birth date, his alter ego Warwick was 12 years old in 1487, just like Edward V.

I agree. But it's all to do with mindset. Look at 9 year old Edward VI's writings  they're hardly that of a child. And so much of the poor princes' thing comes from the Victorians who would cry over Little Nell but didn't mind sending seven-year olds up chimneys  and into mills. Where do you stop, poor Rutland and Edward of Lancaster would be doing their GCSEs today. But, as I say, I actually don't for a moment think that Richard did kill them. If he had one fault he was naive. H Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mariewalsh2003Sent: 28 January 2016 19:13To: Subject: Re: Re: Dan Jones Actually, the normal cut-off age for childhood in the strictest sense was 14. Young people were rarely convicted of crimes before that age. Remember how Henry VII used Lambert Simnel's youth to explain why he didn't hold him criminally responsible - whatever Lambert's birth date, his alter ego Warwick was 12 years old in 1487, just like Edward V.

Well, my point was that they knew exactly where they stopped - they had a template for stages of development that may seem odd to us but which people at the time understood well. I could recommend Nicholas Orme, Medieval Childhood.