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

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

Dan Jones a telegenic Alison Weir, I like that :-)

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 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.

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.

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.

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: poohlandeva
Sent: 22/01/2016 01:44
To:
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. 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: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 28 January 2016 19:13
To:
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.