Princes

Brilliant! Starkey raving & quoting More all others Fair reasonable knowing their stuff. Too Buckingham heavy for my
liking but not bar.
Paul

Sent from my HTC

So, they were murdered, without a body in sight. And Richard dunnit. Thank you, Channel Four. Nothing biased there. And Starkey thinks More is 99% accurate. Welcome to La-La Land. Give me strength. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 9:51 PM To: Subject: Princes

Brilliant! Starkey raving & quoting More all others Fair reasonable knowing their stuff. Too Buckingham heavy for my
liking but not bar.
Paul

Sent from my HTC

You couldn't make Starkey up!! More is masterly, Richard was an unhappy puritan and a malcontent. He must have been there because we don't have any evidence for any of his rantings and he knows something that we don't.
Mary

Oh how I longed to comb Richard's hair! And guess what Richard done it because HT & EOY visited Tyrell in the Tower! Some bad history David with all that More ranting. But we do have Janina Ramirez on our side - not that she or anyone else for the defence were allowed to say much. And they had gone to the trouble of talking with Bert Fields too which impresses me. But Starkey has to have the last say with no referee. Perhaps he's learning from Amy Licence - you know, it must have been Richard because this astounding new fact has come to light...... H
From: "'bale475@...' bale475@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 21 March 2015, 21:51
Subject: Princes

Brilliant! Starkey raving & quoting More all others Fair reasonable knowing their stuff. Too Buckingham heavy for my
liking but not bar.
Paul

Sent from my HTC

I know. And Edward POW was this lovely bright boy Did he meet him? Yep Starkey is getting more and more extreme; must be the money. Even PG could hardly get any coverage
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 21 March 2015, 22:13
Subject: Re: Princes

You couldn't make Starkey up!! More is masterly, Richard was an unhappy puritan and a malcontent. He must have been there because we don't have any evidence for any of his rantings and he knows something that we don't.
Mary

I found it much better than I expected. Quite balanced apart from Starkey who seemed to me to be raving!
Really nice to see John Ashdown Hill, Bertram Fields, David Hipshon and Dr Ramirez all putting forward good reasoned points of view.
Some of my favourite historians since I came to this forum looking for a reading list.
What fanciful point Starkey was trying to make was beyond me and my husband too.
My husband thought that they made Richard look unnecessarily shifty, and I have to agree.
Reasonable on the whole though.

JessFrom: 'bale475@...' bale475@... []
Sent: 21/03/2015 21:51
To:
Subject: Princes

Brilliant! Starkey raving & quoting More all others Fair reasonable knowing their stuff. Too Buckingham heavy for my
liking but not bar.
Paul

Sent from my HTC

The problem with being a visitor and staying in a hotel is that there is no way to know what's on TV where, or when. I didn't realize this was on - and I was in my room at the time, working on email and - drat! - missed it. Had supper with other Richardians, though - we stumbled into each other in the dining room during the rugby match. Since walking is not something I do lengthily well, these days, I'm going to attend (it's Sunday!) today's events in front of the big-ish screen in the dining room at the Campanile and leave space for the younger and hardier in the crowd. May even take this old laptop down and report live on Facebook.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/11486107/Richard-III-the-Princes-in-the-Tower-Channel-4-review.html See the better papers do get it right! Have a good day Nance and everyone else in Leicester. H
From: "'Nance Crawford' Nance@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2015, 0:22
Subject: Re: Princes

The problem with being a visitor and staying in a hotel is that there is no way to know what's on TV where, or when. I didn't realize this was on - and I was in my room at the time, working on email and - drat! - missed it. Had supper with other Richardians, though - we stumbled into each other in the dining room during the rugby match. Since walking is not something I do lengthily well, these days, I'm going to attend (it's Sunday!) today's events in front of the big-ish screen in the dining room at the Campanile and leave space for the younger and hardier in the crowd. May even take this old laptop down and report live on Facebook.

Excellent, Hilary. From: mailto: Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 9:22 AM To: Subject: Re: Princes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/11486107/Richard-III-the-Princes-in-the-Tower-Channel-4-review.html See the better papers do get it right! Have a good day Nance and everyone else in Leicester. H From: "'Nance Crawford' Nance@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2015, 0:22
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Princes
The problem with being a visitor and staying in a hotel is that there is no way to know what's on TV where, or when. I didn't realize this was on - and I was in my room at the time, working on email and - drat! - missed it. Had supper with other Richardians, though - we stumbled into each other in the dining room during the rugby match. Since walking is not something I do lengthily well, these days, I'm going to attend (it's Sunday!) today's events in front of the big-ish screen in the dining room at the Campanile and leave space for the younger and hardier in the crowd. May even take this old laptop down and report live on Facebook.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/565502/Channel-4-s-Jon-Snow-importance-King-Richard-III-s-burial?_ga=1.127163405.1418034282.1413747647 And a much nicer article from Jon Snow in the Express. Note the wood for the coffin came from Charles's forest. H
From: "'Nance Crawford' Nance@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2015, 0:22
Subject: Re: Princes

The problem with being a visitor and staying in a hotel is that there is no way to know what's on TV where, or when. I didn't realize this was on - and I was in my room at the time, working on email and - drat! - missed it. Had supper with other Richardians, though - we stumbled into each other in the dining room during the rugby match. Since walking is not something I do lengthily well, these days, I'm going to attend (it's Sunday!) today's events in front of the big-ish screen in the dining room at the Campanile and leave space for the younger and hardier in the crowd. May even take this old laptop down and report live on Facebook.

Oh gawd...haven't watched it yet...but I thought from the start how is it ever going to be balanced if Starkey is there giving his usual tedious rant....wonder they didn't wheel Hicks and Weir on too,,,,

I'm off to Leicester on Tuesday to pay my respects...a last minute decision..it just dawned on me if I didnt I would regret it for the rest of my life. Well...who would ever have believed it...that this was ever going to be possible...and as I write this Richard is finally out of LU..in a proper and fine coffin, a beautiful linen cloth embroidered with roses by Elizabeth Noakes, everything returned back, the smallest bones in linen bags embroidered by the children from Leicester Richard lll primary school, a casket made by Michael Ibsen containing soil from places associated with Richard placed in the coffin, gun salutes, everything...Eat Your Heart Out Starkey....your views of Richard are as outdated as yesterday's Sun newspaper which is just about the right place for them...Eileen

Don't worry too much Eileen, there are lots of good people too, and Starkey doesn't make a lot of sense.
=
JessFrom: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: 22/03/2015 12:11
To:
Subject: Re: Princes

Oh gawd...haven't watched it yet...but I thought from the start how is it ever going to be balanced if Starkey is there giving his usual tedious rant....wonder they didn't wheel Hicks and Weir on too,,,,

He is so petulant! I can see him as a toddler chucking his toys out of the pram...does he never give it a rest???
Eileen

Just seen a snippet of the cortege on the local news...its a beautiful day too...blue sky and bright...
Richard is being done proud now...at long last. Showing the coffin leaving the Uni...Michael Ibsen there...the presenter said "....respect is now being shown to this much maligned king"...why I do believe the penny has finally dropped...Eileen

I'm about 20 miles from Richard and it's a glorious day. The king is back in his kingdom. Going to be a very emotional week methinks. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2015, 13:32
Subject: RE: Re: Princes

Just seen a snippet of the cortege on the local news...its a beautiful day too...blue sky and bright...
Richard is being done proud now...at long last. Showing the coffin leaving the Uni...Michael Ibsen there...the presenter said "....respect is now being shown to this much maligned king"...why I do believe the penny has finally dropped...Eileen

Yes very emotional...it's a lovely touch the box with the samples of soil in it....not sure if the box will go in the tomb or will be emptied into the tomb...but either way it's moving and beautiful. I can't say how pleased I am to have lived to have seen this day...how proud must be the people who brought this about....Eileen

Sandra wrote: ...And Starkey thinks More is 99% accurate...
Doug here: Puts More way ahead of himself, does he?

Sandra wrote: ...And Starkey thinks More is 99% accurate... Doug here: Puts More way ahead of himself, does he? Sandra here: I don't think he will have thought of that, Doug.

Sandra wrote: ...And Starkey thinks More is 99% accurate... Doug here: Puts More way ahead of himself, does he? Sandra here: I don't think he will have thought of that, Doug.

With the bias shown by Dan Jones, and his use of emotive words like murder, both Hastings and Rivers were murdered, henchman, illegal acts, tyranny, untrustworthy, etc I kept hearing Starkeys voice, and to be honest he probably wrote this nonsense.
Did anyone else know Mancini was an eye witness? Was his language skills and this claim questioned? No. This is The Usurpation, the only copy, discovered 80 years ago, that changed everything because he was an eye witness. He then read a bit out without saying what language it was written in though it clearly wasn't English.
Yep. Starkey in a leather jacket and jeans with tattoos!

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.
Mary

After Richard had no choice but the murder his nephews, he'd gone from being a strong ruler in the north and a great soldier to a paranoid usurping murderer! Then for the next hour there was the story of Margaret Beaufort during the WOTR and how her son was the saint who saved the country from tyranny. Her revolt against Richard, I'd have to watch it to answer Jones argument as to how it was her revolt, and why she wasn't executed by the villainous tyrant. When I saw that coming I switched off. Oh and Richard was a villain as the actor they used had a big black beard, and henchman/right hand man Buckingham never shaved!

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 19 mai 2019 à 16:35, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.

Mary

My daughter recently went to a book launch talk given by one of Jones's 'celebrity historian' friends. Now as it was at a school most of the audience had of course read the book. At the end of the talk a member asked why she had now reached a different conclusion from the one reached in the book. She replied she hadn't realised it was different. And it all went down hill from there.
The moral is if someone else writes 'your' book at least have a glance inside! I wonder who writes Jones's' material? H BTW it was on the Tudors, of course.
On Sunday, 19 May 2019, 15:35:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.

Mary

Who wrote Jones you ask? Well he studied under some bloke called David Starkey so I expect it was that Tudor lover!
Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 20 May 2019, at 09:59, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My daughter recently went to a book launch talk given by one of Jones's 'celebrity historian' friends. Now as it was at a school most of the audience had of course read the book. At the end of the talk a member asked why she had now reached a different conclusion from the one reached in the book. She replied she hadn't realised it was different. And it all went down hill from there.
The moral is if someone else writes 'your' book at least have a glance inside! I wonder who writes Jones's' material? H BTW it was on the Tudors, of course.
On Sunday, 19 May 2019, 15:35:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.

Mary

A lot of Starkey's stuff was apparently researched by outsourcers and ghost written. I met a guy who used to work at his publishers'. I suppose when you get sufficiently famous you just send the team out to bring you back a 'good story'? Which is fair enough as long as it's half true. H
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 11:48:31 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Who wrote Jones you ask? Well he studied under some bloke called David Starkey so I expect it was that Tudor lover!

Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 20 May 2019, at 09:59, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My daughter recently went to a book launch talk given by one of Jones's 'celebrity historian' friends. Now as it was at a school most of the audience had of course read the book. At the end of the talk a member asked why she had now reached a different conclusion from the one reached in the book. She replied she hadn't realised it was different. And it all went down hill from there.
The moral is if someone else writes 'your' book at least have a glance inside! I wonder who writes Jones's' material? H BTW it was on the Tudors, of course.
On Sunday, 19 May 2019, 15:35:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.

Mary

I didn't see the Dan Jones programme, but it sounds like a rehash of another one he did a year or two ago. Jones would have liked you to think that he was right there in Richard brain over 500 years ago when after a distinguished and honourable career, he suddenly turned into a power mad psychopathic child killer. Actually, to anyone who could be bothered to deconstruct his absurd theory it would fall apart in a few minutes. It is no surprise that he was taught by Starkey, but if you are a serious historian then you should develop your own ideas. He even irritated me by referring to Henry VI as 'retarded.' Not only is that word unacceptable, but doesn't he know that people with IQs under 70 don't normally concern themselves with founding schools and universities? For some reason, the programme isn't available on catch up, so at least that limits the potential audience.
I was initially surprised about the historians outsourcing their research and writing, especially since they have so much time and researching new ideas is part of the pleasure of being a historian. However, it would explain why so many books seem to repeat what we have already know. Might the lady at the book launch have been Suzannah Lipscomb or Amy Licence?
Nico



On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 09:47:36 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

A lot of Starkey's stuff was apparently researched by outsourcers and ghost written. I met a guy who used to work at his publishers'. I suppose when you get sufficiently famous you just send the team out to bring you back a 'good story'? Which is fair enough as long as it's half true. H
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 11:48:31 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Who wrote Jones you ask? Well he studied under some bloke called David Starkey so I expect it was that Tudor lover!

Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 20 May 2019, at 09:59, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My daughter recently went to a book launch talk given by one of Jones's 'celebrity historian' friends. Now as it was at a school most of the audience had of course read the book. At the end of the talk a member asked why she had now reached a different conclusion from the one reached in the book. She replied she hadn't realised it was different. And it all went down hill from there.
The moral is if someone else writes 'your' book at least have a glance inside! I wonder who writes Jones's' material? H BTW it was on the Tudors, of course.
On Sunday, 19 May 2019, 15:35:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.

Mary

The third one - 'Dr' Kate Williams on Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth (again!). Imagine giving a talk to a group of Yorkshire teachers and not knowing your stuff - "Eeh lass tha's not done thy revision!".
The problem with outsourcing research it that you no doubt send your researchers (often your students) to find something which endorses your views on things and of course they aim to please, not surprise. I agree with you, all the fun in history is in turning up something yourself - and having to change your ideas sometimes. H
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 21:01:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I didn't see the Dan Jones programme, but it sounds like a rehash of another one he did a year or two ago. Jones would have liked you to think that he was right there in Richard brain over 500 years ago when after a distinguished and honourable career, he suddenly turned into a power mad psychopathic child killer. Actually, to anyone who could be bothered to deconstruct his absurd theory it would fall apart in a few minutes. It is no surprise that he was taught by Starkey, but if you are a serious historian then you should develop your own ideas. He even irritated me by referring to Henry VI as 'retarded.' Not only is that word unacceptable, but doesn't he know that people with IQs under 70 don't normally concern themselves with founding schools and universities? For some reason, the programme isn't available on catch up, so at least that limits the potential audience.
I was initially surprised about the historians outsourcing their research and writing, especially since they have so much time and researching new ideas is part of the pleasure of being a historian. However, it would explain why so many books seem to repeat what we have already know. Might the lady at the book launch have been Suzannah Lipscomb or Amy Licence?
Nico



On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 09:47:36 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

A lot of Starkey's stuff was apparently researched by outsourcers and ghost written. I met a guy who used to work at his publishers'. I suppose when you get sufficiently famous you just send the team out to bring you back a 'good story'? Which is fair enough as long as it's half true. H
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 11:48:31 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Who wrote Jones you ask? Well he studied under some bloke called David Starkey so I expect it was that Tudor lover!

Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 20 May 2019, at 09:59, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My daughter recently went to a book launch talk given by one of Jones's 'celebrity historian' friends. Now as it was at a school most of the audience had of course read the book. At the end of the talk a member asked why she had now reached a different conclusion from the one reached in the book. She replied she hadn't realised it was different. And it all went down hill from there.
The moral is if someone else writes 'your' book at least have a glance inside! I wonder who writes Jones's' material? H BTW it was on the Tudors, of course.
On Sunday, 19 May 2019, 15:35:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.

Mary

Ooh, Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth! Must at least two weeks since there was a programme about them!

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 22 mai 2019 à 10:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

The third one - 'Dr' Kate Williams on Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth (again!). Imagine giving a talk to a group of Yorkshire teachers and not knowing your stuff - "Eeh lass tha's not done thy revision!".
The problem with outsourcing research it that you no doubt send your researchers (often your students) to find something which endorses your views on things and of course they aim to please, not surprise. I agree with you, all the fun in history is in turning up something yourself - and having to change your ideas sometimes. H
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 21:01:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I didn't see the Dan Jones programme, but it sounds like a rehash of another one he did a year or two ago. Jones would have liked you to think that he was right there in Richard brain over 500 years ago when after a distinguished and honourable career, he suddenly turned into a power mad psychopathic child killer. Actually, to anyone who could be bothered to deconstruct his absurd theory it would fall apart in a few minutes. It is no surprise that he was taught by Starkey, but if you are a serious historian then you should develop your own ideas. He even irritated me by referring to Henry VI as 'retarded.' Not only is that word unacceptable, but doesn't he know that people with IQs under 70 don't normally concern themselves with founding schools and universities? For some reason, the programme isn't available on catch up, so at least that limits the potential audience.
I was initially surprised about the historians outsourcing their research and writing, especially since they have so much time and researching new ideas is part of the pleasure of being a historian. However, it would explain why so many books seem to repeat what we have already know. Might the lady at the book launch have been Suzannah Lipscomb or Amy Licence?
Nico



On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 09:47:36 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

A lot of Starkey's stuff was apparently researched by outsourcers and ghost written. I met a guy who used to work at his publishers'. I suppose when you get sufficiently famous you just send the team out to bring you back a 'good story'? Which is fair enough as long as it's half true. H
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 11:48:31 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Who wrote Jones you ask? Well he studied under some bloke called David Starkey so I expect it was that Tudor lover!

Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 20 May 2019, at 09:59, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My daughter recently went to a book launch talk given by one of Jones's 'celebrity historian' friends. Now as it was at a school most of the audience had of course read the book. At the end of the talk a member asked why she had now reached a different conclusion from the one reached in the book. She replied she hadn't realised it was different. And it all went down hill from there.
The moral is if someone else writes 'your' book at least have a glance inside! I wonder who writes Jones's' material? H BTW it was on the Tudors, of course.
On Sunday, 19 May 2019, 15:35:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.

Mary

It doesn't surprise me about Kate Williams. I read the first few chapters of her book about Lady Hamilton a few years ago and gave up. She didn't seem to understand that a biography is supposed to give factual information about the subject, while conjecture (in this case far out ideas that ignored more obvious possibilities) based on social conditions of the day is best left to a historical novel. By all means, discuss all of it if it is interesting, but she hadn't a clue how to separate fact and fiction. I was surprised that a university professor wasn't aware of that. Now I know why, it is all the ghost writer's fault!
Nico

On Wednesday, 22 May 2019, 09:11:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

The third one - 'Dr' Kate Williams on Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth (again!). Imagine giving a talk to a group of Yorkshire teachers and not knowing your stuff - "Eeh lass tha's not done thy revision!".
The problem with outsourcing research it that you no doubt send your researchers (often your students) to find something which endorses your views on things and of course they aim to please, not surprise. I agree with you, all the fun in history is in turning up something yourself - and having to change your ideas sometimes. H
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 21:01:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I didn't see the Dan Jones programme, but it sounds like a rehash of another one he did a year or two ago. Jones would have liked you to think that he was right there in Richard brain over 500 years ago when after a distinguished and honourable career, he suddenly turned into a power mad psychopathic child killer. Actually, to anyone who could be bothered to deconstruct his absurd theory it would fall apart in a few minutes. It is no surprise that he was taught by Starkey, but if you are a serious historian then you should develop your own ideas. He even irritated me by referring to Henry VI as 'retarded.' Not only is that word unacceptable, but doesn't he know that people with IQs under 70 don't normally concern themselves with founding schools and universities? For some reason, the programme isn't available on catch up, so at least that limits the potential audience.
I was initially surprised about the historians outsourcing their research and writing, especially since they have so much time and researching new ideas is part of the pleasure of being a historian. However, it would explain why so many books seem to repeat what we have already know. Might the lady at the book launch have been Suzannah Lipscomb or Amy Licence?
Nico



On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 09:47:36 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

A lot of Starkey's stuff was apparently researched by outsourcers and ghost written. I met a guy who used to work at his publishers'. I suppose when you get sufficiently famous you just send the team out to bring you back a 'good story'? Which is fair enough as long as it's half true. H
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 11:48:31 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Who wrote Jones you ask? Well he studied under some bloke called David Starkey so I expect it was that Tudor lover!

Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 20 May 2019, at 09:59, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My daughter recently went to a book launch talk given by one of Jones's 'celebrity historian' friends. Now as it was at a school most of the audience had of course read the book. At the end of the talk a member asked why she had now reached a different conclusion from the one reached in the book. She replied she hadn't realised it was different. And it all went down hill from there.
The moral is if someone else writes 'your' book at least have a glance inside! I wonder who writes Jones's' material? H BTW it was on the Tudors, of course.
On Sunday, 19 May 2019, 15:35:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.

Mary

It's apparently a new take with a 'feminist twist' :) :) H
On Wednesday, 22 May 2019, 11:29:57 BST, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Ooh, Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth! Must at least two weeks since there was a programme about them!

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 22 mai 2019 à 10:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

The third one - 'Dr' Kate Williams on Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth (again!). Imagine giving a talk to a group of Yorkshire teachers and not knowing your stuff - "Eeh lass tha's not done thy revision!".
The problem with outsourcing research it that you no doubt send your researchers (often your students) to find something which endorses your views on things and of course they aim to please, not surprise. I agree with you, all the fun in history is in turning up something yourself - and having to change your ideas sometimes. H
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 21:01:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I didn't see the Dan Jones programme, but it sounds like a rehash of another one he did a year or two ago. Jones would have liked you to think that he was right there in Richard brain over 500 years ago when after a distinguished and honourable career, he suddenly turned into a power mad psychopathic child killer. Actually, to anyone who could be bothered to deconstruct his absurd theory it would fall apart in a few minutes. It is no surprise that he was taught by Starkey, but if you are a serious historian then you should develop your own ideas. He even irritated me by referring to Henry VI as 'retarded.' Not only is that word unacceptable, but doesn't he know that people with IQs under 70 don't normally concern themselves with founding schools and universities? For some reason, the programme isn't available on catch up, so at least that limits the potential audience.
I was initially surprised about the historians outsourcing their research and writing, especially since they have so much time and researching new ideas is part of the pleasure of being a historian. However, it would explain why so many books seem to repeat what we have already know. Might the lady at the book launch have been Suzannah Lipscomb or Amy Licence?
Nico



On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 09:47:36 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

A lot of Starkey's stuff was apparently researched by outsourcers and ghost written. I met a guy who used to work at his publishers'. I suppose when you get sufficiently famous you just send the team out to bring you back a 'good story'? Which is fair enough as long as it's half true. H
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 11:48:31 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Who wrote Jones you ask? Well he studied under some bloke called David Starkey so I expect it was that Tudor lover!

Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 20 May 2019, at 09:59, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My daughter recently went to a book launch talk given by one of Jones's 'celebrity historian' friends. Now as it was at a school most of the audience had of course read the book.. At the end of the talk a member asked why she had now reached a different conclusion from the one reached in the book. She replied she hadn't realised it was different. And it all went down hill from there.
The moral is if someone else writes 'your' book at least have a glance inside! I wonder who writes Jones's' material? H BTW it was on the Tudors, of course.
On Sunday, 19 May 2019, 15:35:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

You couldn't make it up! Well obviously he did. No mention of any evidence I suppose.

Mary

Nico, How anyone calling themselves a historian can claim to know what someone dead for half a millennia thought, I have no idea. It's not even really safe to always go by what people wrote (unless perhaps a diary), especially if what was written was for public consumption! FWIW, in a recent biography of Sir Winston Churchill, I read that he also out-sourced much of the research for his histories; in particular A History of the English Speaking Peoples and to some extent for his Marlborough. Although, especially with the latter, he usually first grounded himself in the already well-known histories, using his researchers to go through the lesser-known books and papers. He used the same methods when writing those histories in which he was a participant; the difference being that in them, the researchers were there to insure what he remembered was what had, indeed, happened. Doug Nico wrote: I didn't see the Dan Jones programme, but it sounds like a rehash of another one he did a year or two ago. Jones would have liked you to think that he was right there in Richard brain over 500 years ago when after a distinguished and honourable career, he suddenly turned into a power mad psychopathic child killer. Actually, to anyone who could be bothered to deconstruct his absurd theory it would fall apart in a few minutes. It is no surprise that he was taught by Starkey, but if you are a serious historian then you should develop your own ideas. He even irritated me by referring to Henry VI as 'retarded.' Not only is that word unacceptable, but doesn't he know that people with IQs under 70 don't normally concern themselves with founding schools and universities? For some reason, the programme isn't available on catch up, so at least that limits the potential audience. I was initially surprised about the historians outsourcing their research and writing, especially since they have so much time and researching new ideas is part of the pleasure of being a historian. However, it would explain why so many books seem to repeat what we have already know. Might the lady at the book launch have been Suzannah Lipscomb or Amy Licence?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I haven't read any of Churchill's books, but at least it sounds like he was actively involved in supervising his researchers and encouraged them to look at less well known material. Dan Jones mostly parrots Starkey's ideas without really thinking them through. It is a shame really as his reconstructions are aimed at and are appealing to younger viewers (my kids enjoy them anyway), but surely a more nuanced examination of the facts is more interesting. There have noticed a trend for historians who write about how what historical people almost certainly must have felt/thought/done/said although there is no actual evidence to support it.

As for Kate Williams, I think I remember something rather rambling in her introduction which must have been about the 'feminist twist.' I didn't get far enough to judge what it was, but someone must have a very vivid imagination, as most people wouldn't think that Emma's mother murdered her husband just because she went to live with her parents after he died. I wonder if she actually read the finished product.
Nico




On Thursday, 23 May 2019, 18:02:05 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, How anyone calling themselves a historian can claim to know what someone dead for half a millennia thought, I have no idea. It's not even really safe to always go by what people wrote (unless perhaps a diary), especially if what was written was for public consumption! FWIW, in a recent biography of Sir Winston Churchill, I read that he also out-sourced much of the research for his histories; in particular A History of the English Speaking Peoples and to some extent for his Marlborough. Although, especially with the latter, he usually first grounded himself in the already well-known histories, using his researchers to go through the lesser-known books and papers. He used the same methods when writing those histories in which he was a participant; the difference being that in them, the researchers were there to insure what he remembered was what had, indeed, happened. Doug Nico wrote: I didn't see the Dan Jones programme, but it sounds like a rehash of another one he did a year or two ago. Jones would have liked you to think that he was right there in Richard brain over 500 years ago when after a distinguished and honourable career, he suddenly turned into a power mad psychopathic child killer. Actually, to anyone who could be bothered to deconstruct his absurd theory it would fall apart in a few minutes. It is no surprise that he was taught by Starkey, but if you are a serious historian then you should develop your own ideas. He even irritated me by referring to Henry VI as 'retarded.' Not only is that word unacceptable, but doesn't he know that people with IQs under 70 don't normally concern themselves with founding schools and universities? For some reason, the programme isn't available on catch up, so at least that limits the potential audience. I was initially surprised about the historians outsourcing their research and writing, especially since they have so much time and researching new ideas is part of the pleasure of being a historian. However, it would explain why so many books seem to repeat what we have already know. Might the lady at the book launch have been Suzannah Lipscomb or Amy Licence?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I ind it always worth checking the back of any history or biography first to see if secondary source material lists are longer than primary ones. Then any writer who uses undoubtedly and such a lot is on thin ice. The most difficult thing to do when reading or writing history is being able to discard the numerous preconceptions the later centuries have piled onto the subject, throw out the legends and rumours dating from later periods, and throw your mind back into the period you are studying, without any of that baggage. And that goes as much for something as recent as WWII as it does the French Revolution or the WOTR!Secondary sources are always dubious, but using researchers to do the work is like cheating in an exam by copying articles off the internet and not seriously thinking about what is being said.

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 24 mai 2019 à 00:05, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> a écrit :

I haven't read any of Churchill's books, but at least it sounds like he was actively involved in supervising his researchers and encouraged them to look at less well known material. Dan Jones mostly parrots Starkey's ideas without really thinking them through. It is a shame really as his reconstructions are aimed at and are appealing to younger viewers (my kids enjoy them anyway), but surely a more nuanced examination of the facts is more interesting. There have noticed a trend for historians who write about how what historical people almost certainly must have felt/thought/done/said although there is no actual evidence to support it.

As for Kate Williams, I think I remember something rather rambling in her introduction which must have been about the 'feminist twist.' I didn't get far enough to judge what it was, but someone must have a very vivid imagination, as most people wouldn't think that Emma's mother murdered her husband just because she went to live with her parents after he died. I wonder if she actually read the finished product.
Nico




On Thursday, 23 May 2019, 18:02:05 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, How anyone calling themselves a historian can claim to know what someone dead for half a millennia thought, I have no idea. It's not even really safe to always go by what people wrote (unless perhaps a diary), especially if what was written was for public consumption! FWIW, in a recent biography of Sir Winston Churchill, I read that he also out-sourced much of the research for his histories; in particular A History of the English Speaking Peoples and to some extent for his Marlborough. Although, especially with the latter, he usually first grounded himself in the already well-known histories, using his researchers to go through the lesser-known books and papers. He used the same methods when writing those histories in which he was a participant; the difference being that in them, the researchers were there to insure what he remembered was what had, indeed, happened. Doug Nico wrote: I didn't see the Dan Jones programme, but it sounds like a rehash of another one he did a year or two ago. Jones would have liked you to think that he was right there in Richard brain over 500 years ago when after a distinguished and honourable career, he suddenly turned into a power mad psychopathic child killer. Actually, to anyone who could be bothered to deconstruct his absurd theory it would fall apart in a few minutes. It is no surprise that he was taught by Starkey, but if you are a serious historian then you should develop your own ideas. He even irritated me by referring to Henry VI as 'retarded.' Not only is that word unacceptable, but doesn't he know that people with IQs under 70 don't normally concern themselves with founding schools and universities? For some reason, the programme isn't available on catch up, so at least that limits the potential audience. I was initially surprised about the historians outsourcing their research and writing, especially since they have so much time and researching new ideas is part of the pleasure of being a historian. However, it would explain why so many books seem to repeat what we have already know. Might the lady at the book launch have been Suzannah Lipscomb or Amy Licence?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Nico,
That last sentence in your first paragraph is something I find extremely irritating and, hopefully, avoid myself. Well, I try...
I can easily see a history being written from a feminine view-point, but have serious doubts about one being written from a feminist view-point. Except perhaps to decry some sort of male-centrism that might be viewed as dominating the writing of history. Of course, one is faced by the problem that males have dominated history, including the writing of it, so how to re-write what has happened without female sources would be, I should think, nearly impossible.
But then, I am a male, so I might be biased...
Doug

Nico wrote:
I haven't read any of Churchill's books, but at least it sounds like he was actively involved in supervising his researchers and encouraged them to look at less well known material. Dan Jones mostly parrots Starkey's ideas without really thinking them through. It is a shame really as his reconstructions are aimed at and are appealing to younger viewers (my kids enjoy them anyway), but surely a more nuanced examination of the facts is more interesting. There have noticed a trend for historians who write about how what historical people almost certainly must have felt/thought/done/said although there is no actual evidence to support it.
As for Kate Williams, I think I remember something rather rambling in her introduction which must have been about the 'feminist twist.' I didn't get far enough to judge what it was, but someone must have a very vivid imagination, as most people wouldn't think that Emma's mother murdered her husband just because she went to live with her parents after he died. I wonder if she actually read the finished product.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Paul, I fully agree with your first paragraph; however, I also think it all depends on what the job of those researchers actually would be. If they are simply to look for items that support whatever thesis the author has already decided on, then I agree with your last sentence. OTOH, if the researchers' have been tasked with providing information, regardless of whether or not it supports the author's thesis, then I'll have to disagree. It all comes down to what is done with that information  or so it seems to me. Doug Paul wrote: I find it always worth checking the back of any history or biography first to see if secondary source material lists are longer than primary ones. Then any writer who uses undoubtedly and such a lot is on thin ice. The most difficult thing to do when reading or writing history is being able to discard the numerous preconceptions the later centuries have piled onto the subject, throw out the legends and rumours dating from later periods, and throw your mind back into the period you are studying, without any of that baggage. And that goes as much for something as recent as WWII as it does the French Revolution or the WOTR! Secondary sources are always dubious, but using researchers to do the work is like cheating in an exam by copying articles off the internet and not seriously thinking about what is being said.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi I agree with Paul I'm afraid; his is very good methodology.
You see as researchers are 'employed' they are expected to bolster, non confront, the pre-concepts of their employer. The problem gets really bad when that employer can't even bother to read what they've come up with as long as it fits his/her concepts. So the researcher is confined. It's like being a student of Starkey or Hicks and coming up with a theory that exonerates Richard. It's how to ensure your failure, or sacking. H
On Friday, 24 May 2019, 15:36:15 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Paul, I fully agree with your first paragraph; however, I also think it all depends on what the job of those researchers actually would be. If they are simply to look for items that support whatever thesis the author has already decided on, then I agree with your last sentence. OTOH, if the researchers' have been tasked with providing information, regardless of whether or not it supports the author's thesis, then I'll have to disagree. It all comes down to what is done with that information  or so it seems to me. Doug Paul wrote: I find it always worth checking the back of any history or biography first to see if secondary source material lists are longer than primary ones. Then any writer who uses undoubtedly and such a lot is on thin ice. The most difficult thing to do when reading or writing history is being able to discard the numerous preconceptions the later centuries have piled onto the subject, throw out the legends and rumours dating from later periods, and throw your mind back into the period you are studying, without any of that baggage. And that goes as much for something as recent as WWII as it does the French Revolution or the WOTR! Secondary sources are always dubious, but using researchers to do the work is like cheating in an exam by copying articles off the internet and not seriously thinking about what is being said.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary, There's still a definite difference between actual researchers and researchers, though. The former, whether the author or someone working for the author, have been charged with digging out and compiling information on a topic for the author to read, digest and try and determine how to fit the information then provided into the narrative the author is constructing. The latter, OTOH, have had their research limited by parameters that promote only one possible conclusion. Sort of like doing research on Bosworth versus doing research on why the outcome of Bosworth was a foregone conclusion in Tudor's favor. Still, it's not the researchers' problem, any faults are those of the authors who aren't historians so much as polemicists. I think... Doug Who has also just noticed after all these years that I've been replying to posts, not in the order in which they arrive, but rather in the order in which they appear in my in-box! Without thinking, I've been start at the bottom of the listings and work my way up. My apologies to anyone who wonders why I've taken so long in answering! Hilary wrote: Hi I agree with Paul I'm afraid; his is very good methodology. You see as researchers are 'employed' they are expected to bolster, non confront, the pre-concepts of their employer. The problem gets really bad when that employer can't even bother to read what they've come up with as long as it fits his/her concepts. So the researcher is confined. It's like being a student of Starkey or Hicks and coming up with a theory that exonerates Richard. It's how to ensure your failure, or sacking.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

It's a bit like when I was editing documentaries. I wrote one about Richard to tie in with the quincentennial at Middleham in 1983. I went on the shoot and saw the mounted knight had the wrong period banner but the Director ignored my complaint. When editing I realised he'd only wanted to make the film because he saw the Duke of Gloucester would be visiting.At another time I was working on a documentary that stated Charles II wore wigs. I told the producer he'd actually started wearing his hair long as a compliment to his host in exile Louis XIV who grew his hair long all his life. Only in later life did Charles feel the need to sometimes wear a wig. I was told to go and get sources as her researchers said the opposite! She refused to change anything until I proved my point, which I was able to do, but too late to change the commentary! Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 mai 2019 à 15:43, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary, There's still a definite difference between actual researchers and researchers, though. The former, whether the author or someone working for the author, have been charged with digging out and compiling information on a topic for the author to read, digest and try and determine how to fit the information then provided into the narrative the author is constructing. The latter, OTOH, have had their research limited by parameters that promote only one possible conclusion. Sort of like doing research on Bosworth versus doing research on why the outcome of Bosworth was a foregone conclusion in Tudor's favor. Still, it's not the researchers' problem, any faults are those of the authors who aren't historians so much as polemicists. I think... Doug Who has also just noticed after all these years that I've been replying to posts, not in the order in which they arrive, but rather in the order in which they appear in my in-box! Without thinking, I've been start at the bottom of the listings and work my way up. My apologies to anyone who wonders why I've taken so long in answering! Hilary wrote: Hi I agree with Paul I'm afraid; his is very good methodology. You see as researchers are 'employed' they are expected to bolster, non confront, the pre-concepts of their employer. The problem gets really bad when that employer can't even bother to read what they've come up with as long as it fits his/her concepts. So the researcher is confined. It's like being a student of Starkey or Hicks and coming up with a theory that exonerates Richard. It's how to ensure your failure, or sacking.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Paul, You wrote that Louis XIV didn't wear wigs, so that means all those portraits of him with his hair all curled and piled up means either he spent hours having it shellacked (or whatever they did back then) before sitting for his portrait or else the painter didn't put what he actually saw on canvas! Thankfully, that sort of thing never occurs with writers of history... Doug Paul wrote It's a bit like when I was editing documentaries. I wrote one about Richard to tie in with the quincentennial at Middleham in 1983. I went on the shoot and saw the mounted knight had the wrong period banner but the Director ignored my complaint. When editing I realised he'd only wanted to make the film because he saw the Duke of Gloucester would be visiting.. At another time I was working on a documentary that stated Charles II wore wigs. I told the producer he'd actually started wearing his hair long as a compliment to his host in exile Louis XIV who grew his hair long all his life. Only in later life did Charles feel the need to sometimes wear a wig. I was told to go and get sources as her researchers said the opposite! She refused to change anything until I proved my point, which I was able to do, but too late to change the commentary!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Louis XIV had a prolonged levee which included hairdressing, sitting on the commode, washing etc. Yep, hair down past his shoulders u TIL late in life when it thinned. Of course his brother Philippe by all accounts saw the appearance of their hair as a competition, and it was chiefly this that encouraged the courtiers to start copying the style. And as we all know, not everyone can grow their hair long and curly! As for portrait painters, if you didn't flatter the king he had a letter de cachet always handy and a place in the Bastille always available!

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 mai 2019 à 16:52, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> a écrit :

It's a bit like when I was editing documentaries. I wrote one about Richard to tie in with the quincentennial at Middleham in 1983. I went on the shoot and saw the mounted knight had the wrong period banner but the Director ignored my complaint. When editing I realised he'd only wanted to make the film because he saw the Duke of Gloucester would be visiting.

At another time I was working on a documentary that stated Charles II wore wigs. I told the producer he'd actually started wearing his hair long as a compliment to his host in exile Louis XIV who grew his hair long all his life. Only in later life did Charles feel the need to sometimes wear a wig. I was told to go and get sources as her researchers said the opposite! She refused to change anything until I proved my point, which I was able to do, but too late to change the commentary! Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 mai 2019 à 15:43, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary, There's still a definite difference between actual researchers and researchers, though. The former, whether the author or someone working for the author, have been charged with digging out and compiling information on a topic for the author to read, digest and try and determine how to fit the information then provided into the narrative the author is constructing. The latter, OTOH, have had their research limited by parameters that promote only one possible conclusion. Sort of like doing research on Bosworth versus doing research on why the outcome of Bosworth was a foregone conclusion in Tudor's favor. Still, it's not the researchers' problem, any faults are those of the authors who aren't historians so much as polemicists. I think... Doug Who has also just noticed after all these years that I've been replying to posts, not in the order in which they arrive, but rather in the order in which they appear in my in-box! Without thinking, I've been start at the bottom of the listings and work my way up. My apologies to anyone who wonders why I've taken so long in answering! Hilary wrote: Hi I agree with Paul I'm afraid; his is very good methodology. You see as researchers are 'employed' they are expected to bolster, non confront, the pre-concepts of their employer. The problem gets really bad when that employer can't even bother to read what they've come up with as long as it fits his/her concepts. So the researcher is confined. It's like being a student of Starkey or Hicks and coming up with a theory that exonerates Richard. It's how to ensure your failure, or sacking.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Oh and I actually said Charles II didn't wear wigs until later in life!

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 mai 2019 à 16:52, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> a écrit :

It's a bit like when I was editing documentaries. I wrote one about Richard to tie in with the quincentennial at Middleham in 1983. I went on the shoot and saw the mounted knight had the wrong period banner but the Director ignored my complaint. When editing I realised he'd only wanted to make the film because he saw the Duke of Gloucester would be visiting.

At another time I was working on a documentary that stated Charles II wore wigs. I told the producer he'd actually started wearing his hair long as a compliment to his host in exile Louis XIV who grew his hair long all his life. Only in later life did Charles feel the need to sometimes wear a wig. I was told to go and get sources as her researchers said the opposite! She refused to change anything until I proved my point, which I was able to do, but too late to change the commentary! Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 mai 2019 à 15:43, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary, There's still a definite difference between actual researchers and researchers, though. The former, whether the author or someone working for the author, have been charged with digging out and compiling information on a topic for the author to read, digest and try and determine how to fit the information then provided into the narrative the author is constructing. The latter, OTOH, have had their research limited by parameters that promote only one possible conclusion. Sort of like doing research on Bosworth versus doing research on why the outcome of Bosworth was a foregone conclusion in Tudor's favor. Still, it's not the researchers' problem, any faults are those of the authors who aren't historians so much as polemicists. I think... Doug Who has also just noticed after all these years that I've been replying to posts, not in the order in which they arrive, but rather in the order in which they appear in my in-box! Without thinking, I've been start at the bottom of the listings and work my way up. My apologies to anyone who wonders why I've taken so long in answering! Hilary wrote: Hi I agree with Paul I'm afraid; his is very good methodology. You see as researchers are 'employed' they are expected to bolster, non confront, the pre-concepts of their employer. The problem gets really bad when that employer can't even bother to read what they've come up with as long as it fits his/her concepts. So the researcher is confined. It's like being a student of Starkey or Hicks and coming up with a theory that exonerates Richard. It's how to ensure your failure, or sacking.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.