Starkey

I admit I watched the last episode of part one of Starkey's dull trawl
through English monarchy. Well I had to. It was the fifteenth century.
Most of it.
Of course there was no mention of Richard. He is obviously saving that
for the start of the next series, when his hero Henry Tudor will
doubtless be shown as having rescued England from a fate worse than
death! As it was he told us that Henry IV made the killing of deposed
kings acceptable. But he also told us how Edward of Lancaster was a
brave warrior, and Margaret of Anjou merely ambitious for her family
inheritance. Don't think I've ever seen the Wars of the Roses rushed
past so quickly before. Well in Starkey terms they were a mere hiccup
before the glories of his favourite family's rule.
I have no intention of watching any more. I dare not watch the next
episode for fear of throwing things at the screen and busting my tv.
Paul
you're never too old to launch your dreams

Paul



You said:

But he [Starkey] also told us how Edward of Lancaster was a
brave warrior, and Margaret of Anjou merely ambitious for her family
inheritance.



To be fair, we know very little about Edward of Lancaster, and it is entirely possible that he fought bravely in the only battle in which he took part.

I decided some time ago that watching Starkey was bad for my blood pressure. This time I gave up after the simplistic and one-sided first episode.

Ann

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> You said:
>
> But he [Starkey] also told us how Edward of Lancaster was a
> brave warrior, and Margaret of Anjou merely ambitious for her
family
> inheritance.
>
>
>
> To be fair, we know very little about Edward of Lancaster, and it
is entirely possible that he fought bravely in the only battle in
which he took part.
>
> I decided some time ago that watching Starkey was bad for my blood
pressure. This time I gave up after the simplistic and one-sided
first episode.
>
> Ann


I must admit I haven't watched it at all; perhaps I should - my blood
pressure's a bit on the low side.
Surely as regards Edward of Lancester Starkey is, as you suggest,
making this up. I can't think of any evidence for or against his
courage other than:-
a) The Milanese ambassador's comment that "he talks of nothing but of
cutting off heads and making war, as if he were the God of battle"
b) Warkworth's assertion that at Tewkesbury "he cried for succour to
his brother-in-law the Duke of Clarence".

In other words, unless I've missed a vital source we know that he
bragged a lot as a youth, when he hadn't actually seen battle at all,
but have no evidence that he actually fought bravely when it came to
it, indeed one suggestion to the contrary.

Margaret of Anjou I have some sympathy for as she was in a terrible
position and mothers are meant to fight for their children. However,
it seems to me that she compounded whatever problems she inherited.


Marie


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie
The point I'm making is really that we don't know much about Edward of Lancaster at all. As far as I know we have two brief remarks about him during his lifetime (the one from the Milanese ambassador which you quote, and another which has him enthusiastically advocating beheadings), together with Fortescue's reference to him in The Governance of England, which could be described as literary convention (a young prince too busy with military exercises to take an interest in the law), plus conflicting accounts of his death. Given that the accounts of his death which claim that he was killed in cold blood all blame different people, I'm inclined to discount the whole lot and assume that he was killed in the fighting itself - and we have no way of knowing whether bravely or not.
Ann


I must admit I haven't watched it at all; perhaps I should - my blood
pressure's a bit on the low side.
Surely as regards Edward of Lancester Starkey is, as you suggest,
making this up. I can't think of any evidence for or against his
courage other than:-
a) The Milanese ambassador's comment that "he talks of nothing but of
cutting off heads and making war, as if he were the God of battle"
b) Warkworth's assertion that at Tewkesbury "he cried for succour to
his brother-in-law the Duke of Clarence".

In other words, unless I've missed a vital source we know that he
bragged a lot as a youth, when he hadn't actually seen battle at all,
but have no evidence that he actually fought bravely when it came to
it, indeed one suggestion to the contrary.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Starkey



--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> You said:
>
> But he [Starkey] also told us how Edward of Lancaster was a
> brave warrior, and Margaret of Anjou merely ambitious for her
family
> inheritance.
>
>
>
> To be fair, we know very little about Edward of Lancaster, and it
is entirely possible that he fought bravely in the only battle in
which he took part.
>
> I decided some time ago that watching Starkey was bad for my blood
pressure. This time I gave up after the simplistic and one-sided
first episode.
>
> Ann


I must admit I haven't watched it at all; perhaps I should - my blood
pressure's a bit on the low side.
Surely as regards Edward of Lancester Starkey is, as you suggest,
making this up. I can't think of any evidence for or against his
courage other than:-
a) The Milanese ambassador's comment that "he talks of nothing but of
cutting off heads and making war, as if he were the God of battle"
b) Warkworth's assertion that at Tewkesbury "he cried for succour to
his brother-in-law the Duke of Clarence".

In other words, unless I've missed a vital source we know that he
bragged a lot as a youth, when he hadn't actually seen battle at all,
but have no evidence that he actually fought bravely when it came to
it, indeed one suggestion to the contrary.

Margaret of Anjou I have some sympathy for as she was in a terrible
position and mothers are meant to fight for their children. However,
it seems to me that she compounded whatever problems she inherited.


Marie

A phrase I used in Norwich earlier this month was that Margaret of Anjou probably "outsourced paternal duties".

Anyway, I would like those capable of doing so without exploding to watch the first part of Starkey's next series and then bombard www.channel4.com with complaints. We may even get a right of reply.

Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

"But he also told us how Edward of Lancaster was a
brave warrior,"

I for one fell about at this point. I was too disgusted with the
quality of the others to stick with this appalling series but
watched this due to the period.

>

> Surely as regards Edward of Lancester Starkey is, as you suggest,
> making this up. I can't think of any evidence for or against his
> courage other than:-
> a) The Milanese ambassador's comment that "he talks of nothing but
of
> cutting off heads and making war, as if he were the God of battle"
> b) Warkworth's assertion that at Tewkesbury "he cried for succour
to
> his brother-in-law the Duke of Clarence".
>
> In other words, unless I've missed a vital source we know that he
> bragged a lot as a youth, when he hadn't actually seen battle at
all,
> but have no evidence that he actually fought bravely when it came
to
> it, indeed one suggestion to the contrary.
Marie
>
>
>
>
Exactly what I had been going to say.
Brunhild

You beat me to it Marie, especially the 'cutting off heads' quote.
Well done and thanks.
Paul

On Nov 23, 2004, at 13:59, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
>
> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> You said:
>>
>> But he [Starkey] also told us how Edward of Lancaster was a
>> brave warrior, and Margaret of Anjou merely ambitious for her
> family
>> inheritance.
>>
>>
>>
>> To be fair, we know very little about Edward of Lancaster, and it
> is entirely possible that he fought bravely in the only battle in
> which he took part.
>>
>> I decided some time ago that watching Starkey was bad for my blood
> pressure. This time I gave up after the simplistic and one-sided
> first episode.
>>
>> Ann
>
>
> I must admit I haven't watched it at all; perhaps I should - my blood
> pressure's a bit on the low side.
> Surely as regards Edward of Lancester Starkey is, as you suggest,
> making this up. I can't think of any evidence for or against his
> courage other than:-
> a) The Milanese ambassador's comment that "he talks of nothing but of
> cutting off heads and making war, as if he were the God of battle"
> b) Warkworth's assertion that at Tewkesbury "he cried for succour to
> his brother-in-law the Duke of Clarence".
>
> In other words, unless I've missed a vital source we know that he
> bragged a lot as a youth, when he hadn't actually seen battle at all,
> but have no evidence that he actually fought bravely when it came to
> it, indeed one suggestion to the contrary.
>
> Margaret of Anjou I have some sympathy for as she was in a terrible
> position and mothers are meant to fight for their children. However,
> it seems to me that she compounded whatever problems she inherited.
>
>
> Marie
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
>
> Marie
> The point I'm making is really that we don't know much about Edward
of Lancaster at all. As far as I know we have two brief remarks about
him during his lifetime (the one from the Milanese ambassador which
you quote, and another which has him enthusiastically advocating
beheadings), together with Fortescue's reference to him in The
Governance of England, which could be described as literary
convention (a young prince too busy with military exercises to take
an interest in the law), plus conflicting accounts of his death.
Given that the accounts of his death which claim that he was killed
in cold blood all blame different people, I'm inclined to discount
the whole lot and assume that he was killed in the fighting itself -
and we have no way of knowing whether bravely or not.
> Ann
>
>
I think we're really together on this one except that I feel Starkey
is guilty of poor historical practice in claiming Edward was brave
when there is absolutely no evidence for it. There is a world of
difference between a youth's keenness for violent sports and talking
about war, and courage in the very different situation of a real
battle.
I too am inclined to dismiss Warkworth because his version seems too
much like neat a mirror image of the story surrounding Edmund
Rutland's death at the same age. (Edmund becomes Edward, Clifford
becomes Clarence.) And, the man wasn't there anyway. Also, I have
many other issues with Warkworth, and so for mere consistency I'd
have to be cautious with this one.
My point in quoting him is that I don't THINK that any of the early
versions of Edward of Lancaster's death at any rate give any clue as
to how Edward fought other than Warkworth, and he is negative.

So although Edward of Lancaster may have fought bravely, he equally
well may not have done, so Starkey was absolutely wrong, in my view,
to have asserted this as fact.

If you want my own personal gut feeling (which I would not glorify
into a fact), my experience has been that vessels making such an
awful lot of noise do indeed tend to be the empty ones.

Marie

>
>
>
>

Marie

I think we can safely leave it there. If I'm inclined to give Lancaster the benefit of the doubt on this one it's because I feel rather sorry for him. Having Henry VI for a father must have been a hell of a cross to bear, and then Lancaster had Henry V for a paternal grandfather and Rene of Anjou (less heroic thn Henry V but still much admired) as maternal grandfather. Maybe it's not entirely surprising that, if the Milanese ambassador et al are to be relied on, Lancaster went entirely in the other direction from his father - he had an awful lot to prove.

Ann


>
>
I think we're really together on this one except that I feel Starkey
is guilty of poor historical practice in claiming Edward was brave
when there is absolutely no evidence for it. There is a world of
difference between a youth's keenness for violent sports and talking
about war, and courage in the very different situation of a real
battle.
I too am inclined to dismiss Warkworth because his version seems too
much like neat a mirror image of the story surrounding Edmund
Rutland's death at the same age. (Edmund becomes Edward, Clifford
becomes Clarence.) And, the man wasn't there anyway. Also, I have
many other issues with Warkworth, and so for mere consistency I'd
have to be cautious with this one.
My point in quoting him is that I don't THINK that any of the early
versions of Edward of Lancaster's death at any rate give any clue as
to how Edward fought other than Warkworth, and he is negative.

So although Edward of Lancaster may have fought bravely, he equally
well may not have done, so Starkey was absolutely wrong, in my view,
to have asserted this as fact.

If you want my own personal gut feeling (which I would not glorify
into a fact), my experience has been that vessels making such an
awful lot of noise do indeed tend to be the empty ones.

Marie

>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>
> So although Edward of Lancaster may have fought bravely, he
equally
> well may not have done, so Starkey was absolutely wrong, in my
view,
> to have asserted this as fact.

Starkey does have a problem in general with this - in most of his
programmes at some point he makes an assertion about something which
is actually untenable in the face of the actual evidence available.
I would be much happier listening to someone like Gillingham making
an assertion about Henry II, for instance, than Starkey, but I would
also have reservations about an assertion made by Starkey re Henry
VIII, even though that is "his period".
>
> If you want my own personal gut feeling (which I would not glorify
> into a fact), my experience has been that vessels making such an
> awful lot of noise do indeed tend to be the empty ones.
>
> Marie

That's my instinct too.
Brunhild
>
> >
> >
> >
> >

I dare not watch the next
episode for fear of throwing things at the screen and busting my tv.


Has anyone here read Alison Plowden's "The Young Elizabeth"? A wonderful book on the whole, but I hate, loathe, despise, and abominate her metion of Richard "crushing rebellions with his usual violence". Gah.

Hi

I'm new here, though I did use to be a member some years ago. The
discussion on David Starkey encouraged me to join as I wanted to
contribute my two pence worth!

Have any of you read the transcript of his webchat at Channel 4's
website? If not prepare for an increase in your blood pressure!
Judging from it I really can't see Richard III getting a fair
treatment from Starkey.

You can read it at:
http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/M/Monarchy_-
_David_Starkey.html

His comments on Richard are about a third of the way down.

Tracy-Anne

--- In , "hiraeth2"
<hiraeth2@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I'm new here, though I did use to be a member some years ago. The
> discussion on David Starkey encouraged me to join as I wanted to
> contribute my two pence worth!
>
> Have any of you read the transcript of his webchat at Channel 4's
> website? If not prepare for an increase in your blood pressure!
> Judging from it I really can't see Richard III getting a fair
> treatment from Starkey.
>
> You can read it at:
> http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/M/Monarchy_-
> _David_Starkey.html
>
> His comments on Richard are about a third of the way down.
>
> Tracy-Anne

<<<Thank you for posting the link. :)

I'd like to offer a virtual measure of brandy to anybody here who
reads it and feels a little stressed. Best viewed with valium or
alcohol that one.

Nia

> > His comments on Richard are about a third of the way down.
> >
> > Tracy-Anne
>
> <<<Thank you for posting the link. :)
>
> I'd like to offer a virtual measure of brandy to anybody here who
> reads it and feels a little stressed. Best viewed with valium or
> alcohol that one.
>
> Nia


Wasn't Starkey on the anti-Richard side in that TV trial of about
twenty years ago? I read the book though I never saw the TV show, it
wasn't shown here in Australia. He came across as rather arrogant in
the book.

I tried not to let my blood boil over this sort of thing though it is
such a great shame that Starkey gets the TV coverage.

As for his comments about More! I find More's RIII very hard to read.
It reaks of tittle tattle. Personally I always felt that More never
finished it and didn't publish it because he started to have doubts
himself.

I have only seen Starkey on Edward VI and Mary. I did not like it.

From earlier comments, if Monarchy comes on TV here I should give it
a miss.

Helen

--- In , "Helen"
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
> > > His comments on Richard are about a third of the way down.
> > >
> > > Tracy-Anne
> >
> > <<<Thank you for posting the link. :)
> >
> > I'd like to offer a virtual measure of brandy to anybody here who
> > reads it and feels a little stressed. Best viewed with valium or
> > alcohol that one.
> >
> > Nia
>
>
> Wasn't Starkey on the anti-Richard side in that TV trial of about
> twenty years ago? I read the book though I never saw the TV show,
it
> wasn't shown here in Australia. He came across as rather arrogant
in
> the book.
>
> I tried not to let my blood boil over this sort of thing though it
is
> such a great shame that Starkey gets the TV coverage.
>
> As for his comments about More! I find More's RIII very hard to
read.
> It reaks of tittle tattle. Personally I always felt that More never
> finished it and didn't publish it because he started to have doubts
> himself.
>
> I have only seen Starkey on Edward VI and Mary. I did not like it.
>
> From earlier comments, if Monarchy comes on TV here I should give
it
> a miss.
>
> Helen

I have misgivings about discussing people publicly in a negative way,
but as a Ricardian it is comforting to discover that such a strong
opposition figure is actually not terribly likeable. I used to listen
to The Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4, where a big moral issue was debated
each week. The panel, of which David Starkey was a memeber, would
cross-question proponents of the two opposing viewpoints. He would
take the hectoring and bullying approach to winning his argument. The
BBC regularly got mail complaining about his treatment of guests on
the programme. I used to feel so sorry for those people. Dr Starkey
seemed to take the line that if they went to pieces it proved that
their arguments were unsound and irrational. I should have thought
the BBC would have noticed from this programme (which eventually
transferred to TV) that Starkey is not a particularly fair-minded
individual.

I haven't yet looked at his comments on Richard III. I am finding it
difficult to steel myself up to it.

By the by, I didn't see the Tony Robinson programme. Was it a new
one, and can someone tell me all about it, please?

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Helen"
> <sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > > His comments on Richard are about a third of the way down.
> > > >
> > > > Tracy-Anne
> > >
> > > <<<Thank you for posting the link. :)
> > >
> > > I'd like to offer a virtual measure of brandy to anybody here
who
> > > reads it and feels a little stressed. Best viewed with valium
or
> > > alcohol that one.
> > >
> > > Nia
> >
> >
> > Wasn't Starkey on the anti-Richard side in that TV trial of about
> > twenty years ago? I read the book though I never saw the TV show,
> it
> > wasn't shown here in Australia. He came across as rather arrogant
> in
> > the book.
> >
> > I tried not to let my blood boil over this sort of thing though
it
> is
> > such a great shame that Starkey gets the TV coverage.
> >
> > As for his comments about More! I find More's RIII very hard to
> read.
> > It reaks of tittle tattle. Personally I always felt that More
never
> > finished it and didn't publish it because he started to have
doubts
> > himself.
> >
> > I have only seen Starkey on Edward VI and Mary. I did not like it.
> >
> > From earlier comments, if Monarchy comes on TV here I should give
> it
> > a miss.
> >
> > Helen
>
> I have misgivings about discussing people publicly in a negative
way,
> but as a Ricardian it is comforting to discover that such a strong
> opposition figure is actually not terribly likeable. I used to
listen
> to The Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4, where a big moral issue was
debated
> each week. The panel, of which David Starkey was a memeber, would
> cross-question proponents of the two opposing viewpoints. He would
> take the hectoring and bullying approach to winning his argument.
The
> BBC regularly got mail complaining about his treatment of guests on
> the programme. I used to feel so sorry for those people. Dr Starkey
> seemed to take the line that if they went to pieces it proved that
> their arguments were unsound and irrational. I should have thought
> the BBC would have noticed from this programme (which eventually
> transferred to TV) that Starkey is not a particularly fair-minded
> individual.
>
> I haven't yet looked at his comments on Richard III. I am finding
it
> difficult to steel myself up to it.
>
> By the by, I didn't see the Tony Robinson programme. Was it a new
> one, and can someone tell me all about it, please?
>
> Marie

No, a repeat from January (consequences of Jones' Hypothesis,
Robinson in Australia, talking about Lady Margaret, Henry of
Huntingdon, Theophilus and the Civil War, Flora's scandal, the
gambling Earl). I understood the family information much better,
though.

Stephen

Tracey-Anne
Starkey is madly in love with Elizabeth Tudor, so all the members of
her family are wonderful!
Of course he will be anti Richard, and I don't think any of us expect
anything else.
If he wasn't gay I'd suggest he hook up with Weir. They both have a
similar view of the Tudors.
What is it about Elizabeth that attracts gay men? Maybe the frocks?
When at school I was made to study the Stuarts. In my first essay about
James the First, as a precocious 16 year old, I mentioned the king's
disappointment when he discovered that Elizabeth had left him little
except for a wardrobe full of dresses, but as he did not include cross
dressing in his list of perversions, they were of little use to him.
You can tell I was more interested in the French Revolution!!
Paul

On Nov 26, 2004, at 09:42, hiraeth2 wrote:

>
>
> Hi
>
> I'm new here, though I did use to be a member some years ago. The
> discussion on David Starkey encouraged me to join as I wanted to
> contribute my two pence worth!
>
> Have any of you read the transcript of his webchat at Channel 4's
> website? If not prepare for an increase in your blood pressure!
> Judging from it I really can't see Richard III getting a fair
> treatment from Starkey.
>
> You can read it at:
> http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/M/Monarchy_-
> _David_Starkey.html
>
> His comments on Richard are about a third of the way down.
>
> Tracy-Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams

Perhaps it's no coincidence that a shortened form of her name is Liza
then!

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > What is it about Elizabeth that attracts gay men? Maybe the
frocks?

I'm missing something here. A joke maybe? Don't get it.
Please explain.
Paul

On Nov 28, 2004, at 18:11, hiraeth2 wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps it's no coincidence that a shortened form of her name is Liza
> then!
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>> What is it about Elizabeth that attracts gay men? Maybe the
> frocks?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I'm missing something here. A joke maybe? Don't get it.
> Please explain.
> Paul
>
> On Nov 28, 2004, at 18:11, hiraeth2 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Perhaps it's no coincidence that a shortened form of her name is
Liza
> > then!
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >>> What is it about Elizabeth that attracts gay men? Maybe the
> > frocks?
> >
> >
> >
>

I didn't get Liza either but the frocks struck a chord!

Starkey, in the tv trial of Richard, famously accepted More's
account of Richard asking a page to recommend a good murderer whilst
seated upon the privy. I found this to be singularly unacademic - if
R were so evil why would he need to ask a page for a murderer's
name? He would have them in his pay already! The account was
accepted without the necessary academic questioning of motive,
evidence etc.
Starkey admits he's in it for the money and I am convinced he is
both confrontational and arrogant deliberately in order to get a
reaction of antipathy. Better to be loathed than ignored, I suppose!
People who know him tell me he really is as arrogant as he appears
but I suppose if you are raking it in as tv's face of history you
can afford a little self-satisfaction.
Apart from a short article on Edward VI I have yet to read something
of his which I find academically convincing or impressive.
Brunhild

I remember watching the trial many years ago and wondering who the arrogant git was. Now I know who and still think he is a self publicist who makes claims to draw attention to himself. Still as I recall Richard was found innocent. I wish they would show this again as a new generation could do with a fresh debate
----- Original Message -----
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Starkey



--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I'm missing something here. A joke maybe? Don't get it.
> Please explain.
> Paul
>
> On Nov 28, 2004, at 18:11, hiraeth2 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Perhaps it's no coincidence that a shortened form of her name is
Liza
> > then!
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >>> What is it about Elizabeth that attracts gay men? Maybe the
> > frocks?
> >
> >
> >
>

I didn't get Liza either but the frocks struck a chord!

Starkey, in the tv trial of Richard, famously accepted More's
account of Richard asking a page to recommend a good murderer whilst
seated upon the privy. I found this to be singularly unacademic - if
R were so evil why would he need to ask a page for a murderer's
name? He would have them in his pay already! The account was
accepted without the necessary academic questioning of motive,
evidence etc.
Starkey admits he's in it for the money and I am convinced he is
both confrontational and arrogant deliberately in order to get a
reaction of antipathy. Better to be loathed than ignored, I suppose!
People who know him tell me he really is as arrogant as he appears
but I suppose if you are raking it in as tv's face of history you
can afford a little self-satisfaction.
Apart from a short article on Edward VI I have yet to read something
of his which I find academically convincing or impressive.
Brunhild




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>> Apart from a short article on Edward VI I have yet to read
something
> of his which I find academically convincing or impressive.
> Brunhild


Actually I quite enjoyed his book on Henry VIII's six wives. I
thought it was quite a refreshing take on them as he went back to the
original sources rather than depending heavily on Strickland like
most biographers do. Apparently she's the one who came up with the
idea that Catherine Parr acted as nurse to Henry as there is nothing
in the contemporary chronicles to say so.

Tracy-Anne

--- brunhild613 <brunhild613@...> wrote:

>Starkey admits he's in it for the money and I am
>convinced he is both confrontational and arrogant
>deliberately in order to get a reaction of
>antipathy. Better to be loathed than ignored, I
>suppose!
>People who know him tell me he really is as arrogant
>as he appears but I suppose if you are raking it in
>as tv's face of history you can afford a little
>self-satisfaction.

Hmmm, I've certainly never been convinced by any of
his writing (not that I get far without throwing the
book in question across the room...) and about the
only time I've been able to put up with his rubbish
has been on The Moral Maze on Radio 4 about 5 years
ago. Every week seemly the rest of the panel came up
with new ways to call him a fascist, arrogant twit....

I happened to be glancing through Robert Lacey's
Christmas money spinner the other day and it occurred
to me he'd get on very well with Starkey.

K





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I am 15 years old and female and I quite like Elizabeth, but that doesn't mean I worship the whole brood. Most of the other Tudors quite disgust me, honestly.

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:Tracey-Anne
Starkey is madly in love with Elizabeth Tudor, so all the members of
her family are wonderful!
Of course he will be anti Richard, and I don't think any of us expect
anything else.
If he wasn't gay I'd suggest he hook up with Weir. They both have a
similar view of the Tudors.
What is it about Elizabeth that attracts gay men? Maybe the frocks?
When at school I was made to study the Stuarts. In my first essay about
James the First, as a precocious 16 year old, I mentioned the king's
disappointment when he discovered that Elizabeth had left him little
except for a wardrobe full of dresses, but as he did not include cross
dressing in his list of perversions, they were of little use to him.
You can tell I was more interested in the French Revolution!!
Paul

On Nov 26, 2004, at 09:42, hiraeth2 wrote:

>
>
> Hi
>
> I'm new here, though I did use to be a member some years ago. The
> discussion on David Starkey encouraged me to join as I wanted to
> contribute my two pence worth!
>
> Have any of you read the transcript of his webchat at Channel 4's
> website? If not prepare for an increase in your blood pressure!
> Judging from it I really can't see Richard III getting a fair
> treatment from Starkey.
>
> You can read it at:
> http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/M/Monarchy_-
> _David_Starkey.html
>
> His comments on Richard are about a third of the way down.
>
> Tracy-Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams





Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Kirsten Lynn <comtessededia@...> wrote:
I happened to be glancing through Robert Lacey's
Christmas money spinner the other day and it occurred
to me he'd get on very well with Starkey.



That must have been the same book I was glancing through the other day. I'm not sure why publishers should bother with books like that.

Then I was also looking at Great Harry by Carolly Ericksen (sic?) and she was happily going along about the "tyranny" and "dark days" of Richard until Great Harry's father rescued England from those "dire" days. I suppose if you refer to Henry VIII as Great Harry I should had expected that. Something puzzled me about Henry VIII. Some historians have kept on how popular he was with England's populace. In those days before polls and elections how would one know how popular a leader was?

Helen
___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
> Something puzzled me about Henry VIII. Some historians have kept on
how popular he was with England's populace. In those days before
polls and elections how would one know how popular a leader was?
>
> Helen
> ___________________________________________________________


I think they are probably just going by what the chroniclers of the
time say. When he first came to the throne he was popular because he
was young, handsome and represented a fresh start for the country
after the years of the miserly Henry VII. And by the time he turned
into the tyrant that we know today no doubt most people were too
afraid to say anything against him. After all, threat of execution is
a pretty powerful incentive to like your king!

Tracy-Anne

--- Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:

---------------------------------


>Kirsten Lynn <comtessededia@...> wrote:
>I happened to be glancing through Robert Lacey's
>Christmas money spinner the other day and it occurred
>to me he'd get on very well with Starkey.

>That must have been the same book I was glancing
>through the other day. I'm not sure why publishers
>should bother with books like that.

It's a certainly a mystery to me. I was especially
annoyed by Lacey's complaint that Richard gets off
lightly with today's "tv justice".

K





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

>
>
> Actually I quite enjoyed his book on Henry VIII's six wives. I
> thought it was quite a refreshing take on them as he went back to
the
> original sources rather than depending heavily on Strickland like
> most biographers do. Apparently she's the one who came up with the
> idea that Catherine Parr acted as nurse to Henry as there is
nothing
> in the contemporary chronicles to say so.
>
> Tracy-Anne

His books on Elizabeth are less convincing, so much so the book you
refer to is still on my shelf unread, having been put to the back
of the "to read" pile on the strength of his others.
Brunhild

Yes, you got her name right. I've never read Great Harry, because the only Tudor I care about is Elizabeth.

Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:

Kirsten Lynn <comtessededia@...> wrote:
I happened to be glancing through Robert Lacey's
Christmas money spinner the other day and it occurred
to me he'd get on very well with Starkey.



That must have been the same book I was glancing through the other day. I'm not sure why publishers should bother with books like that.

Then I was also looking at Great Harry by Carolly Ericksen (sic?) and she was happily going along about the "tyranny" and "dark days" of Richard until Great Harry's father rescued England from those "dire" days. I suppose if you refer to Henry VIII as Great Harry I should had expected that. Something puzzled me about Henry VIII. Some historians have kept on how popular he was with England's populace. In those days before polls and elections how would one know how popular a leader was?

Helen
___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.





Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Did anyone see the Elizabeth exhibit at the Maritime Museum last year
that he was in charge of? There was an amazing range of artefacts and
it was really worth seeing. Though I had to laugh when I read an
article he wrote about her where he said that the atmosphere she was
raised in was akin to if Prince William had not been sent to Eton but
to Wormwood Scrubs! I know those were more brutal times but surely it
couldn't have been as bad as that!

Tracy-Anne

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>>
> His books on Elizabeth are less convincing, so much so the book you
> refer to is still on my shelf unread, having been put to the back
> of the "to read" pile on the strength of his others.
> Brunhild

Just read an article in which David Starkey says that there are two
kinds of atheists: Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists. That's
pretty good. Wish I'd thought of that. Many years ago, my literary
criticism professor said that there were no Protestants any more: just
Rotarians. That's not bad either. Of course, both statements are what my
high school French teacher referred to as 'meaningless profundities.

Bill Barber wrote:
> Just read an article in which David Starkey says that there are two
> kinds of atheists: Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists. That's
> pretty good. Wish I'd thought of that. Many years ago, my literary
> criticism professor said that there were no Protestants any more: just
> Rotarians. That's not bad either. Of course, both statements are what my
> high school French teacher referred to as 'meaningless profundities.
>
>
>
Regrettably, from what I've read, in the UK that might well be true.

--Bob Waters

Why regrettable? Mark of progress in my view.

And since I'm the product of a Protestant/Catholic marriage, does
that make me a third kind of (mixed) atheist?

--- In , Robert Waters
<rewaters@...> wrote:
>
> Bill Barber wrote:
> > Just read an article in which David Starkey says that there are
two
> > kinds of atheists: Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists.
That's
> > pretty good. Wish I'd thought of that. Many years ago, my
literary
> > criticism professor said that there were no Protestants any more:
just
> > Rotarians. That's not bad either. Of course, both statements are
what my
> > high school French teacher referred to as 'meaningless
profundities.
> >
> >
> >
> Regrettably, from what I've read, in the UK that might well be true.
>
> --Bob Waters
>

Sorry but I can't help thinking that it's one of those comments that might sound smart but quite silly when you think about it.

Helen (Christened, educated C of E (Anglican) and presently unsure)

Robert Waters <rewaters@...> wrote:
Bill Barber wrote:
> Just read an article in which David Starkey says that there are two
> kinds of atheists: Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists. That's
> pretty good. Wish I'd thought of that. Many years ago, my literary
> criticism professor said that there were no Protestants any more: just
> Rotarians. That's not bad either. Of course, both statements are what my
> high school French teacher referred to as 'meaningless profundities.
>
>
>
Regrettably, from what I've read, in the UK that might well be true.

--Bob Waters





Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

That's what my teacher meant by 'meaningless profundities'.

Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> Sorry but I can't help thinking that it's one of those comments that
> might sound smart but quite silly when you think about it.
>
> Helen (Christened, educated C of E (Anglican) and presently unsure)
>
> Robert Waters <rewaters@... <mailto:rewaters%40mchsi.com>> wrote:
> Bill Barber wrote:
> > Just read an article in which David Starkey says that there are two
> > kinds of atheists: Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists. That's
> > pretty good. Wish I'd thought of that. Many years ago, my literary
> > criticism professor said that there were no Protestants any more: just
> > Rotarians. That's not bad either. Of course, both statements are
> what my
> > high school French teacher referred to as 'meaningless profundities.
> >
> >
> >
> Regrettably, from what I've read, in the UK that might well be true.
>
> --Bob Waters
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com <http://au.messenger.yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>

Of cause, missed that bit.

Helen

Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
That's what my teacher meant by 'meaningless profundities'.

Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> Sorry but I can't help thinking that it's one of those comments that
> might sound smart but quite silly when you think about it.
>
> Helen (Christened, educated C of E (Anglican) and presently unsure)
>
> Robert Waters <rewaters@... <mailto:rewaters%40mchsi.com>> wrote:
> Bill Barber wrote:
> > Just read an article in which David Starkey says that there are two
> > kinds of atheists: Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists. That's
> > pretty good. Wish I'd thought of that. Many years ago, my literary
> > criticism professor said that there were no Protestants any more: just
> > Rotarians. That's not bad either. Of course, both statements are
> what my
> > high school French teacher referred to as 'meaningless profundities.
> >
> >
> >
> Regrettably, from what I've read, in the UK that might well be true.
>
> --Bob Waters
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com <http://au.messenger.yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>







Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Just watched Starkey's first programme of a series "Henry 8th - Mind of a Tyrant" this weekend, and soon wished I hadn't!
Richard was of course mentioned and though not vilified directly, Starkey has learnt something these past few years, he insinuated an awful lot in a few sentences.
The Princes disappeared "forever behind the dreaded walls of the Tower" ! [no mention of the Tower being a palace at the time and not having the ghastly reputation it earned a few years later]. The Princes, "young" king Edward V and his brother Richard, were "imprisoned" here, after a period in history when "relatives and family members were murdered by other family members", when King Henry VI was "battered to death inside these walls, when the Chancellor of England was dragged out and, without trial, savagely beheaded on a block of wood", then the young king "was deposed and the crown taken by his uncle, who became king Richard the Third".
"Savage, dragged, imprisoned, beaten, murdered". Words used in the same sentence as Richard's name without directly accusing him of anything!

Starkey thinks himself able to refute any charge of bias by using the language this way, but I'm on to you sir!

Nothing must get in the way of his being able to idolise Henry VIII and the wonderful daughter Elizabeth. Nothing could possibly have been better for us as a nation than the [bloody] reigns of the Tudors, though of course Starkey will whitewash the blood out and make excuses, no doubt, for the destruction of the monasteries and the wholescale theft and destruction of property, the murder of hundreds of innocent men and women, who wanted to be left alone to worship in peace, the numerous executions of many simply because they disagreed with his policy, all in the name of Henry getting a divorce, these will not be mentioned. And having once got that divorce, Henry, realised his new queen couldn't give him a son immediately, became guilty of the legal murder of his annointed queen, Anne Boleyn on trumped up charges. Not for a moment did Henry consider himself to be the problem in making a male child!
And what a legacy he left. More killings in the name of religion under his son Edward, then his two daughters. What a terrific time for ordinary people!!

In the same programme there was almost a moment of hope when Perkin Warbeck appeared. But it didn't last long, for Warbeck was "clearly a fraud" though he did find a lot of supporters. He then mixed up Warbeck's rising with that of Lambert Simnel, who didn't even get a name check, to make it appear that only one rebellion had taken place. Warbeck, 'the pretend Duke of York, too became a prisoner in the Tower, and this duke of York, like the other, never left it."
Elizabeth of York got a good part of the programme, but only in her influence on the education of the young Henry. Nothing about her not being allowed to meet Warbeck, and only a brief reference to her spending most of her time in her own household away from her husband. Did she really show so much grief over the death of Arthur when she hardly knew him as he was removed to his own household at a very early age? Henry fell apart, and she was sent for to comfort him [snet for you notice - hardly the reaction of a loving couple]
No mention of the later treason of Buckingham, and only a few passings references to De La Pole, Duke of Sussex. Of course our hero, joined the last opposition plot against Henry VII just before the old king died, so that he could attack the dreadful tax gathering ministers around the mean old man.
True there was rejoicing when Henry VII died, and young Henry became king, mainly because the vast majority of the country hated the old man, and the new king reminded many of his grandfather Edward IV in the good old Yorkist days!

Paul

p.s. interesting the Church of England making such a fuss over the gay marriage bill considering the way the Church was formed. The bil is supposed to be a threat to the "sacred institution of marriage" as if Henry 8th wasn't! :-)


Richard Liveth Yet!

The trouble with Tudor historians is that they seem to do very little research. The evidence is there if they would only look for it. Similarly there is no evidence to say that the Princes were murdered in the Tower or anywhere else or indeed that they died in the Tower. We don't even know if they died at all. All that we can be sure of is that they are dead now. Thank you Paul for bringing this to our notice. The thing about Starkey is that people think that if he has said something it must be the gospel truth.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Just watched Starkey's first programme of a series "Henry 8th - Mind of a Tyrant" this weekend, and soon wished I hadn't!
> Richard was of course mentioned and though not vilified directly, Starkey has learnt something these past few years, he insinuated an awful lot in a few sentences.
> The Princes disappeared "forever behind the dreaded walls of the Tower" ! [no mention of the Tower being a palace at the time and not having the ghastly reputation it earned a few years later]. The Princes, "young" king Edward V and his brother Richard, were "imprisoned" here, after a period in history when "relatives and family members were murdered by other family members", when King Henry VI was "battered to death inside these walls, when the Chancellor of England was dragged out and, without trial, savagely beheaded on a block of wood", then the young king "was deposed and the crown taken by his uncle, who became king Richard the Third".
> "Savage, dragged, imprisoned, beaten, murdered". Words used in the same sentence as Richard's name without directly accusing him of anything!
>
> Starkey thinks himself able to refute any charge of bias by using the language this way, but I'm on to you sir!
>
> Nothing must get in the way of his being able to idolise Henry VIII and the wonderful daughter Elizabeth. Nothing could possibly have been better for us as a nation than the [bloody] reigns of the Tudors, though of course Starkey will whitewash the blood out and make excuses, no doubt, for the destruction of the monasteries and the wholescale theft and destruction of property, the murder of hundreds of innocent men and women, who wanted to be left alone to worship in peace, the numerous executions of many simply because they disagreed with his policy, all in the name of Henry getting a divorce, these will not be mentioned. And having once got that divorce, Henry, realised his new queen couldn't give him a son immediately, became guilty of the legal murder of his annointed queen, Anne Boleyn on trumped up charges. Not for a moment did Henry consider himself to be the problem in making a male child!
> And what a legacy he left. More killings in the name of religion under his son Edward, then his two daughters. What a terrific time for ordinary people!!
>
> In the same programme there was almost a moment of hope when Perkin Warbeck appeared. But it didn't last long, for Warbeck was "clearly a fraud" though he did find a lot of supporters. He then mixed up Warbeck's rising with that of Lambert Simnel, who didn't even get a name check, to make it appear that only one rebellion had taken place. Warbeck, 'the pretend Duke of York, too became a prisoner in the Tower, and this duke of York, like the other, never left it."
> Elizabeth of York got a good part of the programme, but only in her influence on the education of the young Henry. Nothing about her not being allowed to meet Warbeck, and only a brief reference to her spending most of her time in her own household away from her husband. Did she really show so much grief over the death of Arthur when she hardly knew him as he was removed to his own household at a very early age? Henry fell apart, and she was sent for to comfort him [snet for you notice - hardly the reaction of a loving couple]
> No mention of the later treason of Buckingham, and only a few passings references to De La Pole, Duke of Sussex. Of course our hero, joined the last opposition plot against Henry VII just before the old king died, so that he could attack the dreadful tax gathering ministers around the mean old man.
> True there was rejoicing when Henry VII died, and young Henry became king, mainly because the vast majority of the country hated the old man, and the new king reminded many of his grandfather Edward IV in the good old Yorkist days!
>
> Paul
>
> p.s. interesting the Church of England making such a fuss over the gay marriage bill considering the way the Church was formed. The bil is supposed to be a threat to the "sacred institution of marriage" as if Henry 8th wasn't! :-)
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Channel 4 is currently showing a 3 parter about the Churchills (starting with Winston - who else?) and John Duke of Marlborough).  A programme I'd really like to watch (for Marlborough, not Winston) but not sure I can stand much more of Starkey and it's only been on seven minutes!
 
Am I the only one who finds him (regardless by the way of his opinion of Richard) insufferable?
 
Liz

Does anyone remember THE FIRST CHURCHILLS? I first saw it at university in the early 1970s and loved it. I remain interested in the Restoration period of English history because of that series.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Channel 4 is currently showing a 3 parter about the Churchills (starting with Winston - who else?) and John Duke of Marlborough).  A programme I'd really like to watch (for Marlborough, not Winston) but not sure I can stand much more of Starkey and it's only been on seven minutes!
>  
> Am I the only one who finds him (regardless by the way of his opinion of Richard) insufferable?
>  
> Liz
>
>
>

I just finished re-reading his Six Wives volume, which I imported in
electronic format. I noticed several errors, and some assumptions
specifically about Juana of Castile which make her appear not only
unbalanced but stupid and cowardly. These assumptions are not backed up by
the primary sources, and I'd like to find him on Facebook and tell him so.

Maria
ejbronte@...


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, liz williams <
ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Channel 4 is currently showing a 3 parter about the Churchills (starting
> with Winston - who else?) and John Duke of Marlborough). A programme I'd
> really like to watch (for Marlborough, not Winston) but not sure I can
> stand much more of Starkey and it's only been on seven minutes!
>
> Am I the only one who finds him (regardless by the way of his opinion of
> Richard) insufferable?
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>

I remember it being excellent.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Starkey


 
Does anyone remember THE FIRST CHURCHILLS? I first saw it at university in the early 1970s and loved it. I remain interested in the Restoration period of English history because of that series.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Channel 4 is currently showing a 3 parter about the Churchills (starting with Winston - who else?) and John Duke of Marlborough).  A programme I'd really like to watch (for Marlborough, not Winston) but not sure I can stand much more of Starkey and it's only been on seven minutes!
>  
> Am I the only one who finds him (regardless by the way of his opinion of Richard) insufferable?
>  
> Liz
>
>
>

I was lucky enough to work a couple of years ago with the marvellous actress Maggie Tyzack who played Queen Anne in the series, a performance I have never forgotten.
She died last year, well into her 80s and working almost up to the end.
Paul

On 26 Jul 2012, at 20:12, warrenmalach wrote:

> Does anyone remember THE FIRST CHURCHILLS? I first saw it at university in the early 1970s and loved it. I remain interested in the Restoration period of English history because of that series.
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> Channel 4 is currently showing a 3 parter about the Churchills (starting with Winston - who else?) and John Duke of Marlborough). A programme I'd really like to watch (for Marlborough, not Winston) but not sure I can stand much more of Starkey and it's only been on seven minutes!
>>
>> Am I the only one who finds him (regardless by the way of his opinion of Richard) insufferable?
>>
>> Liz
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I also remember her performance in THE FORSYTE SAGA. The final scene between her Queen Anne and Sarah Churchill in THE FIRST CHURCHILLS was memorable. I am sorry to hear that she has died.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I was lucky enough to work a couple of years ago with the marvellous actress Maggie Tyzack who played Queen Anne in the series, a performance I have never forgotten.
> She died last year, well into her 80s and working almost up to the end.
> Paul
>
> On 26 Jul 2012, at 20:12, warrenmalach wrote:
>
> > Does anyone remember THE FIRST CHURCHILLS? I first saw it at university in the early 1970s and loved it. I remain interested in the Restoration period of English history because of that series.
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Channel 4 is currently showing a 3 parter about the Churchills (starting with Winston - who else?) and John Duke of Marlborough). A programme I'd really like to watch (for Marlborough, not Winston) but not sure I can stand much more of Starkey and it's only been on seven minutes!
> >>
> >> Am I the only one who finds him (regardless by the way of his opinion of Richard) insufferable?
> >>
> >> Liz
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

He's got a nice style; but figure, for example, his stating that Juana was
a malleable creature, besotted beyond measure with Philip the Handsome, and
that she was kept pretty much out of sight in England so that she wouldn't
embarrass the gathered. Part of this may have been true before 1504; but
if you asked Philip how malleable and loving Juana was after the death of
Isabel the Catholic, he could tell you about having to force her to sign
papers; about how he could not wrench her loyalty from Fernando; and how,
at the end of one of their horrific arguments over his lovers, Juana swore
she would die before she ever again did anything he liked. You could also
ask Anne of Brittany how malleable Juana was when, during the crossing to
Spain in about 1501, Philip fell in line with Louis and Juana did not -- to
the extent that she appeared at at the equivalent of a state dinner in full
Spanish dress. And you could ask Juana's mother, Isabel, about how
malleable, weak-willed Juana did the impossible and beat Isabel the
Catholic into surrender at the castle of La Mota. These example of how
Starkey misread Juana are just off the top of my head. There are others.

So when I see this sort of thing where I'm in my comfort level of
information, I get leery as I read on and wade where I'm less familiar;
this affects my enjoyment level of reading.

I did like his take on Anne of Cleves, and how he portrayed Catherine
Howard. In fact, I thought he did a particularly nice job in painting a
positive portrait of her.

He's also very self-congratulatory about various points that he makes, and
I take that sort of thing with a lot of salt in my spoon. And just
personally, I found myself sighing often at his tendency to end sections as
though summing up for a cliff-hanger -- and giving us only two of many
alternatives.

I know he wants to write a bio focusing on Henry himself - he seems to kind
of like Great Harry. I think he might do a very nice job there.

Maria
ejbronte@...


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I remember it being excellent.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Starkey
>
>
>
>
> Does anyone remember THE FIRST CHURCHILLS? I first saw it at university in
> the early 1970s and loved it. I remain interested in the Restoration period
> of English history because of that series.
>
> --- In , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Channel 4 is currently showing a 3 parter about the Churchills (starting
> with Winston - who else?) and John Duke of Marlborough). A programme I'd
> really like to watch (for Marlborough, not Winston) but not sure I can
> stand much more of Starkey and it's only been on seven minutes!
> >
> > Am I the only one who finds him (regardless by the way of his opinion of
> Richard) insufferable?
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I must admit I applauded when reading this, an article about an American
historian, a real one, Susan Bordo, Professor of English and Women's
Studies at the University of Kentucky, and her study of Anne Boleyn.
She is on a mission to rescue the queen from the popular portrayal of a
"scheming seductress" who plotted the downfall of Catherine of Aragon.
She concludes that the drama The Tudors is a more accurate portrayal of
the queen than all the books and television shows produced by Dr
Starkey, whom she describes as...
wait for it.....
"an all-purpose media tart".

She continues that her subject was a free-thinking, reformist
intellectual who struggled with the subservience required of her as
Henry's queen.
She lashes out at the British historians who, she believes, still
perpetuate the view of the schemer.
"It's very interesting how much has been built out of so little
historically verifiable detail. Anne was not the ambitious, scheming
slut she is so often portrayed as in 20th century popular culture."

Dr Starkey is a prime offender.
She says " I bristle most when Anne is dragged through the sexist muck,
but devotees of David Starkey are oblivious to his stereotyping. He is a
master dramatist who makes entering a library look like an episode from
an Indiana Jones movie. His approach is sexist. He takes female
historians to task for their focus on love affairs and not military
history, but his work is just as soap opera-ish."

[Personal question when did "soap opera-ish' enter the English language?]

Starkey's response? He jumped into one of his many Elizabeth 1st frocks
and disappeared over the far horizon, leaving a minion to say that "Dr
Starkey never comments on books he hasn't read."
No wonder he knows so little about our Richard. He hasn't read anything
but More and Shakespeare!!! They're the only ones he's heard of!
Paul



--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thank you for that Paul. The bit about "an all purpose media tart certainly made me laugh". So unless he has read a book it is not relevant.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I must admit I applauded when reading this, an article about an American
> historian, a real one, Susan Bordo, Professor of English and Women's
> Studies at the University of Kentucky, and her study of Anne Boleyn.
> She is on a mission to rescue the queen from the popular portrayal of a
> "scheming seductress" who plotted the downfall of Catherine of Aragon.
> She concludes that the drama The Tudors is a more accurate portrayal of
> the queen than all the books and television shows produced by Dr
> Starkey, whom she describes as...
> wait for it.....
> "an all-purpose media tart".
>
> She continues that her subject was a free-thinking, reformist
> intellectual who struggled with the subservience required of her as
> Henry's queen.
> She lashes out at the British historians who, she believes, still
> perpetuate the view of the schemer.
> "It's very interesting how much has been built out of so little
> historically verifiable detail. Anne was not the ambitious, scheming
> slut she is so often portrayed as in 20th century popular culture."
>
> Dr Starkey is a prime offender.
> She says " I bristle most when Anne is dragged through the sexist muck,
> but devotees of David Starkey are oblivious to his stereotyping. He is a
> master dramatist who makes entering a library look like an episode from
> an Indiana Jones movie. His approach is sexist. He takes female
> historians to task for their focus on love affairs and not military
> history, but his work is just as soap opera-ish."
>
> [Personal question when did "soap opera-ish' enter the English language?]
>
> Starkey's response? He jumped into one of his many Elizabeth 1st frocks
> and disappeared over the far horizon, leaving a minion to say that "Dr
> Starkey never comments on books he hasn't read."
> No wonder he knows so little about our Richard. He hasn't read anything
> but More and Shakespeare!!! They're the only ones he's heard of!
> Paul
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Isn't that a sad commentary? Once upon a time, scholarship was all about reading and learning from a multitude of sources.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of ricard1an
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:09 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Starkey



Thank you for that Paul. The bit about "an all purpose media tart certainly made me laugh". So unless he has read a book it is not relevant.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I must admit I applauded when reading this, an article about an American
> historian, a real one, Susan Bordo, Professor of English and Women's
> Studies at the University of Kentucky, and her study of Anne Boleyn.
> She is on a mission to rescue the queen from the popular portrayal of a
> "scheming seductress" who plotted the downfall of Catherine of Aragon.
> She concludes that the drama The Tudors is a more accurate portrayal of
> the queen than all the books and television shows produced by Dr
> Starkey, whom she describes as...
> wait for it.....
> "an all-purpose media tart".
>
> She continues that her subject was a free-thinking, reformist
> intellectual who struggled with the subservience required of her as
> Henry's queen.
> She lashes out at the British historians who, she believes, still
> perpetuate the view of the schemer.
> "It's very interesting how much has been built out of so little
> historically verifiable detail. Anne was not the ambitious, scheming
> slut she is so often portrayed as in 20th century popular culture."
>
> Dr Starkey is a prime offender.
> She says " I bristle most when Anne is dragged through the sexist muck,
> but devotees of David Starkey are oblivious to his stereotyping. He is a
> master dramatist who makes entering a library look like an episode from
> an Indiana Jones movie. His approach is sexist. He takes female
> historians to task for their focus on love affairs and not military
> history, but his work is just as soap opera-ish."
>
> [Personal question when did "soap opera-ish' enter the English language?]
>
> Starkey's response? He jumped into one of his many Elizabeth 1st frocks
> and disappeared over the far horizon, leaving a minion to say that "Dr
> Starkey never comments on books he hasn't read."
> No wonder he knows so little about our Richard. He hasn't read anything
> but More and Shakespeare!!! They're the only ones he's heard of!
> Paul
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Very entertaining! 
I was taught Starkey's period of history by Cliff Davies (author of Peace, Print and Protestantism) whose view of Anne certainly coincided with Dr. Bordo's. Friends of friends were under Starkey's tutelage at the same time - and "media tart" was certainly a term in currency among both groups. :-) Cliff is a character and could be scary to students, but we were still kind of protective of him and resented Starkey's greater fame!
As you probably know, DS has caused periodic furores in the press with his comments on female historians; many share Dr Bordo's views of him.....

--- On Sun, 28/4/13, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Starkey
To: "RichardIIISociety forum" <>
Date: Sunday, 28 April, 2013, 13:19
















 









I must admit I applauded when reading this, an article about an American

historian, a real one, Susan Bordo, Professor of English and Women's

Studies at the University of Kentucky, and her study of Anne Boleyn.

She is on a mission to rescue the queen from the popular portrayal of a

"scheming seductress" who plotted the downfall of Catherine of Aragon.

She concludes that the drama The Tudors is a more accurate portrayal of

the queen than all the books and television shows produced by Dr

Starkey, whom she describes as...

wait for it.....

"an all-purpose media tart".



She continues that her subject was a free-thinking, reformist

intellectual who struggled with the subservience required of her as

Henry's queen.

She lashes out at the British historians who, she believes, still

perpetuate the view of the schemer.

"It's very interesting how much has been built out of so little

historically verifiable detail. Anne was not the ambitious, scheming

slut she is so often portrayed as in 20th century popular culture."



Dr Starkey is a prime offender.

She says " I bristle most when Anne is dragged through the sexist muck,

but devotees of David Starkey are oblivious to his stereotyping. He is a

master dramatist who makes entering a library look like an episode from

an Indiana Jones movie. His approach is sexist. He takes female

historians to task for their focus on love affairs and not military

history, but his work is just as soap opera-ish."



[Personal question when did "soap opera-ish' enter the English language?]



Starkey's response? He jumped into one of his many Elizabeth 1st frocks

and disappeared over the far horizon, leaving a minion to say that "Dr

Starkey never comments on books he hasn't read."

No wonder he knows so little about our Richard. He hasn't read anything

but More and Shakespeare!!! They're the only ones he's heard of!

Paul



--

Richard Liveth Yet!