Truth, fiction Hicks, and TV

Hicks is at it again, showing off his historical weight by praising
Henry V, a "hardy perennial in terms of English patriotism", lauding him
because he resumed the Hundred Years War and was well deserving of
Shakespeare's commemoration.
Hicks quoting Shakespeare as a source again! such a good historian
Hicks, eh? Such good research he does! Such good sources he uses!

Meanwhile a television special about Mary Queen of Scots begins with her
kneeling down to be beheaded wearing black, when it is on record she
shocked the onlookers at her execution by wearing scarlet, the Catholic
colour of martyrdom. On the soundtrack she speaks with a Scottish
accent, when having lived in France for most of her first 17 years, she
always spoke with French accent.
One wonders why they pay researchers sometimes.

Paul
[frustrated!]

Oh Paul, how awful this sounds. And you, as a writer, must be doubly horrified.



On Apr 9, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Hicks is at it again, showing off his historical weight by praising
Henry V, a "hardy perennial in terms of English patriotism", lauding him
because he resumed the Hundred Years War and was well deserving of
Shakespeare's commemoration.
Hicks quoting Shakespeare as a source again! such a good historian
Hicks, eh? Such good research he does! Such good sources he uses!

Meanwhile a television special about Mary Queen of Scots begins with her
kneeling down to be beheaded wearing black, when it is on record she
shocked the onlookers at her execution by wearing scarlet, the Catholic
colour of martyrdom. On the soundtrack she speaks with a Scottish
accent, when having lived in France for most of her first 17 years, she
always spoke with French accent.
One wonders why they pay researchers sometimes.

Paul
[frustrated!]

I cannot see why re starting the Hundred Years War is seen as a Good Thing, especially given that we lost. I doubt Hicks is celebrating the fact that it led to the downfall and total destruction of the Lancastrian dynasty, which it undoubtedly did.
Strange to find echos of Edwardian imperialist delusion in a modern historian.
Brian W

I recorded the latter Paul. I shall not now watch it in case tempted to throw something at set. I noticed she looked very young when they were showing a preview of her execution. Looked about 25. Perhaps the government should create a sort of Ofhis - you know, an inspectorate on all history programmes and the knowledge of the so-called historians. Why, for example, do they continue to ignore Ian Mortimer, who has written (good) books on Henry V? H
From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 9 April 2015, 23:28
Subject: Re: Truth, fiction Hicks, and TV

Oh Paul, how awful this sounds. And you, as a writer, must be doubly horrified.



On Apr 9, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Hicks is at it again, showing off his historical weight by praising
Henry V, a "hardy perennial in terms of English patriotism", lauding him
because he resumed the Hundred Years War and was well deserving of
Shakespeare's commemoration.
Hicks quoting Shakespeare as a source again! such a good historian
Hicks, eh? Such good research he does! Such good sources he uses!

Meanwhile a television special about Mary Queen of Scots begins with her
kneeling down to be beheaded wearing black, when it is on record she
shocked the onlookers at her execution by wearing scarlet, the Catholic
colour of martyrdom. On the soundtrack she speaks with a Scottish
accent, when having lived in France for most of her first 17 years, she
always spoke with French accent.
One wonders why they pay researchers sometimes.

Paul
[frustrated!]

Mary equally frustrated. How do they get away with it? Dan Jones has just been on television strutting about the Tower telling his version of the Princes. They died in the Tower Shakespeare said , so it must be true.

When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


On 10/04/2015 21:27, maryfriend@... [] wrote:
Mary equally frustrated. How do they get away with it? Dan Jones has just been on television strutting about the Tower telling his version of the Princes. They died in the Tower Shakespeare said , so it must be true.

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

I was in college in the late 60's. My two favorite professors taught Shakespeare and World History. Both told their classes that the Plantagenets served well, and that the demise of R III was a swirl of events he could not have imagined. The Shakespearian scholar, said Shakespeare was writing for an audience who had no recollection of the Plantagenets, and for a Tudor Queen who had history and drama written for and from her point of view, and her effort to save their brief time as rulers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

Or they are a couple of narcissists........

JessFrom: wednesday.mac@... []
Sent: 12/04/2015 18:50
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Truth, fiction Hicks, and TV

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

You were lucky then to have someone who knew their history.
Paul


On 12/04/2015 19:08, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
I was in college in the late 60's. My two favorite professors taught Shakespeare and World History. Both told their classes that the Plantagenets served well, and that the demise of R III was a swirl of events he could not have imagined. The Shakespearian scholar, said Shakespeare was writing for an audience who had no recollection of the Plantagenets, and for a Tudor Queen who had history and drama written for and from her point of view, and her effort to save their brief time as rulers. 



On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

 

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

Yes, they were scholars, and warned us not to believe in everything we read. Both stressed sources, more than one, more than two, and as close to contemporary as possible. They were hard on us, but fair, and true teachers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

You were lucky then to have someone who knew their history.
Paul

On 12/04/2015 19:08, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
I was in college in the late 60's. My two favorite professors taught Shakespeare and World History. Both told their classes that the Plantagenets served well, and that the demise of R III was a swirl of events he could not have imagined. The Shakespearian scholar, said Shakespeare was writing for an audience who had no recollection of the Plantagenets, and for a Tudor Queen who had history and drama written for and from her point of view, and her effort to save their brief time as rulers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

I think a lot of people buy into the legends and liking them so much they don't want to let them go. Story - Richard killed his nephews in the Tower. Not proven a murder even took place as we all know. But the story is a good one.
Like two other big stories that most people accept.
Story - "The Jews were slaves in Ancient Egypt and built the monuments."
Truth is that Ancient Egypt never used slave labour but a form of conscription. Egyptians would serve for a year, then go back to their lives until the next time they got the call again. They lived in nice houses and were well fed and treated, Evidence for this is massive, with some charming messages found in workers camps near the royal tombs, pyramids etc one asking wife to "send some of the your delicious honey cakes. I miss them."
Out the window goes Exodus!
Story - Romans chained their galley slaves to the oars. Well those awful Romans actually employed, yes, employed, experienced, specially trained rowers for their galleys, especially their war galleys. They treasured experienced sailors, and paid them well.
Good bye Ben-Hur!
Great stories. Facts just get in the way!
Paul

On 12/04/2015 22:30, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
Yes, they were scholars, and warned us not to believe in everything we read. Both stressed sources, more than one, more than two, and as close to contemporary as possible. They were hard on us, but fair, and true teachers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

 

You were lucky then to have someone who knew their history.
Paul

On 12/04/2015 19:08, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
I was in college in the late 60's. My two favorite professors taught Shakespeare and World History. Both told their classes that the Plantagenets served well, and that the demise of R III was a swirl of events he could not have imagined. The Shakespearian scholar, said Shakespeare was writing for an audience who had no recollection of the Plantagenets, and for a Tudor Queen who had history and drama written for and from her point of view, and her effort to save their brief time as rulers. 



On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

 

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

The most important thing I learned when I was studying history at A level was how to validate sources, to analyse, and not to believe anything I read or was told until I had.
I think it was more valuable to me than almost anything I was ever taught.
A skill I use everyday and certainly not just for historical research.
I did have very good lecturers, it was a course I did when I was in my thirties.
Perhaps I was just very lucky.

Jess.From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 12/04/2015 23:03
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Truth, fiction Hicks, and TV

I think a lot of people buy into the legends and liking them so much they don't want to let them go. Story - Richard killed his nephews in the Tower. Not proven a murder even took place as we all know. But the story is a good one.
Like two other big stories that most people accept.
Story - "The Jews were slaves in Ancient Egypt and built the monuments."
Truth is that Ancient Egypt never used slave labour but a form of conscription. Egyptians would serve for a year, then go back to their lives until the next time they got the call again. They lived in nice houses and were well fed and treated, Evidence for this is massive, with some charming messages found in workers camps near the royal tombs, pyramids etc one asking wife to "send some of the your delicious honey cakes. I miss them."
Out the window goes Exodus!
Story - Romans chained their galley slaves to the oars. Well those awful Romans actually employed, yes, employed, experienced, specially trained rowers for their galleys, especially their war galleys. They treasured experienced sailors, and paid them well.
Good bye Ben-Hur!
Great stories. Facts just get in the way!
Paul

On 12/04/2015 22:30, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
Yes, they were scholars, and warned us not to believe in everything we read. Both stressed sources, more than one, more than two, and as close to contemporary as possible. They were hard on us, but fair, and true teachers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

You were lucky then to have someone who knew their history.
Paul

On 12/04/2015 19:08, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
I was in college in the late 60's. My two favorite professors taught Shakespeare and World History. Both told their classes that the Plantagenets served well, and that the demise of R III was a swirl of events he could not have imagined. The Shakespearian scholar, said Shakespeare was writing for an audience who had no recollection of the Plantagenets, and for a Tudor Queen who had history and drama written for and from her point of view, and her effort to save their brief time as rulers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

Yes, and the guys in the fights to the death in the Coliseum really did not. They were more like a great team of basketball, rugby, and other team games. As Joseph Campbell said "one man's myth is another man's religion"! So the stories are taken in without a thought of checking. Are we lazy as a people, untutored, or just slipping in standards?



On Apr 12, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

I think a lot of people buy into the legends and liking them so much they don't want to let them go. Story - Richard killed his nephews in the Tower. Not proven a murder even took place as we all know. But the story is a good one.
Like two other big stories that most people accept.
Story - "The Jews were slaves in Ancient Egypt and built the monuments."
Truth is that Ancient Egypt never used slave labour but a form of conscription. Egyptians would serve for a year, then go back to their lives until the next time they got the call again. They lived in nice houses and were well fed and treated, Evidence for this is massive, with some charming messages found in workers camps near the royal tombs, pyramids etc one asking wife to "send some of the your delicious honey cakes. I miss them."
Out the window goes Exodus!
Story - Romans chained their galley slaves to the oars. Well those awful Romans actually employed, yes, employed, experienced, specially trained rowers for their galleys, especially their war galleys. They treasured experienced sailors, and paid them well.
Good bye Ben-Hur!
Great stories. Facts just get in the way!
Paul

On 12/04/2015 22:30, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
Yes, they were scholars, and warned us not to believe in everything we read. Both stressed sources, more than one, more than two, and as close to contemporary as possible. They were hard on us, but fair, and true teachers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

You were lucky then to have someone who knew their history.
Paul

On 12/04/2015 19:08, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
I was in college in the late 60's. My two favorite professors taught Shakespeare and World History. Both told their classes that the Plantagenets served well, and that the demise of R III was a swirl of events he could not have imagined. The Shakespearian scholar, said Shakespeare was writing for an audience who had no recollection of the Plantagenets, and for a Tudor Queen who had history and drama written for and from her point of view, and her effort to save their brief time as rulers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

We were lucky, but we also listened and learned.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Janjovian janjovian@... [] <> wrote:

The most important thing I learned when I was studying history at A level was how to validate sources, to analyse, and not to believe anything I read or was told until I had.
I think it was more valuable to me than almost anything I was ever taught.
A skill I use everyday and certainly not just for historical research.
I did have very good lecturers, it was a course I did when I was in my thirties.
Perhaps I was just very lucky.

Jess. From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 12/04/2015 23:03
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Truth, fiction Hicks, and TV

I think a lot of people buy into the legends and liking them so much they don't want to let them go. Story - Richard killed his nephews in the Tower. Not proven a murder even took place as we all know. But the story is a good one.
Like two other big stories that most people accept.
Story - "The Jews were slaves in Ancient Egypt and built the monuments."
Truth is that Ancient Egypt never used slave labour but a form of conscription. Egyptians would serve for a year, then go back to their lives until the next time they got the call again. They lived in nice houses and were well fed and treated, Evidence for this is massive, with some charming messages found in workers camps near the royal tombs, pyramids etc one asking wife to "send some of the your delicious honey cakes. I miss them."
Out the window goes Exodus!
Story - Romans chained their galley slaves to the oars. Well those awful Romans actually employed, yes, employed, experienced, specially trained rowers for their galleys, especially their war galleys. They treasured experienced sailors, and paid them well.
Good bye Ben-Hur!
Great stories. Facts just get in the way!
Paul

On 12/04/2015 22:30, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
Yes, they were scholars, and warned us not to believe in everything we read. Both stressed sources, more than one, more than two, and as close to contemporary as possible. They were hard on us, but fair, and true teachers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

You were lucky then to have someone who knew their history.
Paul

On 12/04/2015 19:08, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
I was in college in the late 60's. My two favorite professors taught Shakespeare and World History. Both told their classes that the Plantagenets served well, and that the demise of R III was a swirl of events he could not have imagined. The Shakespearian scholar, said Shakespeare was writing for an audience who had no recollection of the Plantagenets, and for a Tudor Queen who had history and drama written for and from her point of view, and her effort to save their brief time as rulers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

And there was no such thing as thumbs down for death! And Nero wasn't even in Rome when the fire began, and helped out fighting the fires, not fiddling!
But Hollywood put it in their movies so it must be true!
Paul


On 13/04/2015 00:07, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
Yes, and the guys in the fights to the death in the Coliseum really did not. They were more like a great team of basketball, rugby, and other team games.  As Joseph Campbell said "one man's myth is another man's religion"! So the stories are taken in without a thought of checking. Are we lazy as a people, untutored, or just slipping in standards? 



On Apr 12, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

 

I think a lot of people buy into the legends and liking them so much they don't want to let them go. Story - Richard killed his nephews in the Tower. Not proven a murder even took place as we all know. But the story is a good one.
Like two other big stories that most people accept.
Story - "The Jews were slaves in Ancient Egypt and built the monuments."
Truth is that Ancient Egypt never used slave labour but a form of conscription. Egyptians would serve for a year, then go back to their lives until the next time they got the call again. They lived in nice houses and were well fed and treated, Evidence for this is massive, with some charming messages found in workers camps near the royal tombs, pyramids etc one asking wife to "send some of the your delicious honey cakes. I miss them."
Out the window goes Exodus!
Story - Romans chained their galley slaves to the oars. Well those awful Romans actually employed, yes, employed, experienced, specially trained rowers for their galleys, especially their war galleys. They treasured experienced sailors, and paid them well.
Good bye Ben-Hur!
Great stories. Facts just get in the way!
Paul

On 12/04/2015 22:30, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
Yes, they were scholars, and warned us not to believe in everything we read. Both stressed sources, more than one, more than two, and as close to contemporary as possible. They were hard on us, but fair, and true teachers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

 

You were lucky then to have someone who knew their history.
Paul

On 12/04/2015 19:08, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
I was in college in the late 60's. My two favorite professors taught Shakespeare and World History. Both told their classes that the Plantagenets served well, and that the demise of R III was a swirl of events he could not have imagined. The Shakespearian scholar, said Shakespeare was writing for an audience who had no recollection of the Plantagenets, and for a Tudor Queen who had history and drama written for and from her point of view, and her effort to save their brief time as rulers. 



On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

 

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

When I was studying history many years ago, we used to amuse ourselves when it came to the Reformation with seeing how many pages or even paragraphs it took to guess whether the author was Catholic, Protestant, or neither. The record was six lines, if I remember correctly!

Sent from my iPad

The absolute saddest part of this is that so many people just say, oh blah blah said it, so he/she must "know"!


On Apr 13, 2015, at 2:08 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

And there was no such thing as thumbs down for death! And Nero wasn't even in Rome when the fire began, and helped out fighting the fires, not fiddling!
But Hollywood put it in their movies so it must be true!
Paul

On 13/04/2015 00:07, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
Yes, and the guys in the fights to the death in the Coliseum really did not. They were more like a great team of basketball, rugby, and other team games. As Joseph Campbell said "one man's myth is another man's religion"! So the stories are taken in without a thought of checking. Are we lazy as a people, untutored, or just slipping in standards?



On Apr 12, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

I think a lot of people buy into the legends and liking them so much they don't want to let them go. Story - Richard killed his nephews in the Tower. Not proven a murder even took place as we all know. But the story is a good one.
Like two other big stories that most people accept.
Story - "The Jews were slaves in Ancient Egypt and built the monuments."
Truth is that Ancient Egypt never used slave labour but a form of conscription. Egyptians would serve for a year, then go back to their lives until the next time they got the call again. They lived in nice houses and were well fed and treated, Evidence for this is massive, with some charming messages found in workers camps near the royal tombs, pyramids etc one asking wife to "send some of the your delicious honey cakes. I miss them."
Out the window goes Exodus!
Story - Romans chained their galley slaves to the oars. Well those awful Romans actually employed, yes, employed, experienced, specially trained rowers for their galleys, especially their war galleys. They treasured experienced sailors, and paid them well.
Good bye Ben-Hur!
Great stories. Facts just get in the way!
Paul

On 12/04/2015 22:30, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
Yes, they were scholars, and warned us not to believe in everything we read. Both stressed sources, more than one, more than two, and as close to contemporary as possible. They were hard on us, but fair, and true teachers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

You were lucky then to have someone who knew their history.
Paul

On 12/04/2015 19:08, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
I was in college in the late 60's. My two favorite professors taught Shakespeare and World History. Both told their classes that the Plantagenets served well, and that the demise of R III was a swirl of events he could not have imagined. The Shakespearian scholar, said Shakespeare was writing for an audience who had no recollection of the Plantagenets, and for a Tudor Queen who had history and drama written for and from her point of view, and her effort to save their brief time as rulers.



On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

Paul wrote: When I saw he was doing the Tower I guessed that would be the way he would go.
After his dreadful series on the earlier Plantagenets which was more about "Oooh look at me in tight jeans and trendy leather jacket! I'm the new Michael Wood! Aren't I gorgeous, and clever!" except of course Michael Wood is a historian who checks his facts and gives all the arguments.
They get away with it because the commissioning editors only ask for 45 minutes of television to fill an hour slot of commercial tv and don't care if the facts are anything like accurate.
Shakespeare said Macbeth was a good king of Scotland who ruled happily and peacefully for 20 years before being defeated in battle by Malcolm, who took over and raped the country to fill his own coffers. Oh, no. That isn't what Shakespeare wrote is it? So the history books and documents and chronicles are all wrong. Of course.
Oops sorry.
Of course Dan and the Bard know what they are talking about when it comes to the sons of Edward IV. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Paul


Weds writes:
I swear, the likes of Dan and Starkey behave as if Richard has personally rejected their advances, so they have to say the nastiest things possible about him in retaliation. Either that, or they just like being mean about someone who can't fight back...at the moment.

And he was on a dumb U S talk show promoting his most recent book, 'The Wars of the Roses,' saying what a marvelous king Henry V was. He left out that he was an adventurer, an opportunist and a warmonger. Because he was featuring his book, he was depicting the period as somewhat glamorous.Dave



On Saturday, 11 April 2015, 4:27, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


Mary equally frustrated. How do they get away with it? Dan Jones has just been on television strutting about the Tower telling his version of the Princes. They died in the Tower Shakespeare said , so it must be true.

Oh, for goodness sake Dave, Shakespeare said Henry V was a hero and a great man with a wicked sense of humour!
You should know better than to challenge Dan Jones whose chief source it seems for medieval history is Shakespeare!
Paul


On 13/04/2015 14:31, David Butterworth davetheslave44@... [] wrote:
And he was on a dumb U S talk show promoting his most recent book, 'The Wars of the Roses,' saying what a marvelous king Henry V was. He left out that he was an adventurer, an opportunist and a warmonger. Because he was featuring his book, he was depicting the period as somewhat glamorous. Dave



On Saturday, 11 April 2015, 4:27, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


  Mary equally frustrated. How do they get away with it? Dan Jones has just been on television strutting about the Tower telling his version of the Princes. They died in the Tower Shakespeare said , so it must be true.

Ok, but I've only lately been 'sussing out' Dan Jones, so to speak. I've only recently discovered him, his books, so realize he's not quite the 'full shilling' when it comes down to historical matters. Evidently, you've known this for some time.Dave



On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, 1:39, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:


Oh, for goodness sake Dave, Shakespeare said Henry V was a hero and a great man with a wicked sense of humour!
You should know better than to challenge Dan Jones whose chief source it seems for medieval history is Shakespeare!
Paul


On 13/04/2015 14:31, David Butterworth davetheslave44@... [] wrote:
And he was on a dumb U S talk show promoting his most recent book, 'The Wars of the Roses,' saying what a marvelous king Henry V was. He left out that he was an adventurer, an opportunist and a warmonger. Because he was featuring his book, he was depicting the period as somewhat glamorous. Dave



On Saturday, 11 April 2015, 4:27, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


Mary equally frustrated. How do they get away with it? Dan Jones has just been on television strutting about the Tower telling his version of the Princes. They died in the Tower Shakespeare said , so it must be true.

There was a large :-) on my post I forgot to add, but you are correct, I watched his series on the earlier Plantagenets and my jaw dropped early on. It was on the floor by the time he got to Edward II where we were treated to the king and Gaveston exchanging coy glances, and Isabelle and Mortimer having long naked sex, again and again. Jones appears to have done little research into the facts but spewed out all the gossip, so that his conclusions were ridiculous. On this occasion he hadn't even read Marlowe!! :-)
Still lots of shots of him in jeans and leather jacket, so that's ok then.....
Paul
p.s. In the UK we arelucky enough to have a channel called Yesterday that is for some unknown reason ferreting away some terrific stuff, like a new series called Medieval Dead where a terrific archaeologist named Tim Sutherland is investigating various bones found in sites all over the place. This man knows his stuff and stands for no nonsense! An expert too on conflict injuries on skeletal remains. He also discovered Richard's Towton chapel remains a couple of years ago.
Brilliant stuff. A new series on castle builders began last night though I haven't seen it yet.


On 15/04/2015 05:41, David Butterworth davetheslave44@... [] wrote:
Ok, but I've only lately been 'sussing out' Dan Jones, so to speak. I've only recently discovered him, his books, so realize he's not quite the  'full shilling' when it comes down to historical matters. Evidently, you've known this for some time. Dave



On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, 1:39, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:


  Oh, for goodness sake Dave, Shakespeare said Henry V was a hero and a great man with a wicked sense of humour!
You should know better than to challenge Dan Jones whose chief source it seems for medieval history is Shakespeare!
Paul


On 13/04/2015 14:31, David Butterworth davetheslave44@... [] wrote:
And he was on a dumb U S talk show promoting his most recent book, 'The Wars of the Roses,' saying what a marvelous king Henry V was. He left out that he was an adventurer, an opportunist and a warmonger. Because he was featuring his book, he was depicting the period as somewhat glamorous. Dave



On Saturday, 11 April 2015, 4:27, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


  Mary equally frustrated. How do they get away with it? Dan Jones has just been on television strutting about the Tower telling his version of the Princes. They died in the Tower Shakespeare said , so it must be true.

However, young people aren't very motivated by history generally. Anyone who is on the TV who they can relate to and zazzes up the subject is in my opinion a benefit. If this peaks their interest then they may well go on and find out a bit more (accurate) information on the subject.
Gillian.

I find it strange the way some people are really interested in history and others don't give a damn.
I suppose we all get more interested as we get older.
I have been fascinated with the subject ever since I was a child, but neither of my daughters, who are both very bright, are very interested, even though my eldest has asked to go to Leicester with me to see Richard's tomb. However, her 8 year old son Jack just loves the subject and was telling me all about "Henry VIII who had lots of wives" when he was about 5.
He watched all the Channel 4 programmes about Richard, and bought a book about his reign.
I have two granddaughters too, so I will continue to encourage them although they are rather young yet.
I think it is a pity about Dan Jones, Michael Wood was handsome, gorgeous, and accurate, but perhaps that combination doesn't happen very often!

JessFrom: gillian.schifreen@... []
Sent: 15/04/2015 11:59
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Truth, fiction Hicks, and TV

However, young people aren't very motivated by history generally. Anyone who is on the TV who they can relate to and zazzes up the subject is in my opinion a benefit. If this peaks their interest then they may well go on and find out a bit more (accurate) information on the subject.
Gillian.

Is a beau and Mortimer? Galveston just glancing? No scholar me, but that is laughably wrong, wrong, wrong.



On Apr 15, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

There was a large :-) on my post I forgot to add, but you are correct, I watched his series on the earlier Plantagenets and my jaw dropped early on. It was on the floor by the time he got to Edward II where we were treated to the king and Gaveston exchanging coy glances, and Isabelle and Mortimer having long naked sex, again and again. Jones appears to have done little research into the facts but spewed out all the gossip, so that his conclusions were ridiculous. On this occasion he hadn't even read Marlowe!! :-)
Still lots of shots of him in jeans and leather jacket, so that's ok then.....
Paul
p.s. In the UK we arelucky enough to have a channel called Yesterday that is for some unknown reason ferreting away some terrific stuff, like a new series called Medieval Dead where a terrific archaeologist named Tim Sutherland is investigating various bones found in sites all over the place. This man knows his stuff and stands for no nonsense! An expert too on conflict injuries on skeletal remains. He also discovered Richard's Towton chapel remains a couple of years ago.
Brilliant stuff. A new series on castle builders began last night though I haven't seen it yet.

On 15/04/2015 05:41, David Butterworth davetheslave44@... [] wrote:
Ok, but I've only lately been 'sussing out' Dan Jones, so to speak. I've only recently discovered him, his books, so realize he's not quite the 'full shilling' when it comes down to historical matters. Evidently, you've known this for some time. Dave



On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, 1:39, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:


Oh, for goodness sake Dave, Shakespeare said Henry V was a hero and a great man with a wicked sense of humour!
You should know better than to challenge Dan Jones whose chief source it seems for medieval history is Shakespeare!
Paul


On 13/04/2015 14:31, David Butterworth davetheslave44@... [] wrote:
And he was on a dumb U S talk show promoting his most recent book, 'The Wars of the Roses,' saying what a marvelous king Henry V was. He left out that he was an adventurer, an opportunist and a warmonger. Because he was featuring his book, he was depicting the period as somewhat glamorous. Dave



On Saturday, 11 April 2015, 4:27, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


Mary equally frustrated. How do they get away with it? Dan Jones has just been on television strutting about the Tower telling his version of the Princes. They died in the Tower Shakespeare said , so it must be true.

I started my nephews and nieces off early:  during holidays, the kids and I would split off and make ourselves comfy, and then I'd tell them "stories":  about Richard; about Catherine the Great; about Isabel and Fernando ... anyone I was researching at the time.  They got to look forward to it.
Once, I told the story of the courtship of Isabel and Fernando to my nephews at a restaurant before treating them to a movie; the waitress kept coming by to catch pieces of the story.  That was kind of nice, and it's evidence that you can, indeed, make history interesting to pretty much anyone, if you find the right chord.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Janjovian janjovian@... [] <> wrote:
 

I find it strange the way some people are really interested in history and others don't give a damn.
I suppose we all get more interested as we get older.
I have been fascinated with the subject ever since I was a child, but neither of my daughters, who are both very bright, are very interested, even though my eldest has asked to go to Leicester with me to see Richard's tomb. However, her 8 year old son Jack just loves the subject and was telling me all about "Henry VIII who had lots of wives" when he was about 5.
He watched all the Channel 4 programmes about Richard, and bought a book about his reign.
I have two granddaughters too, so I will continue to encourage them although they are rather young yet.
I think it is a pity about Dan Jones, Michael Wood was handsome, gorgeous, and accurate, but perhaps that combination doesn't happen very often!

JessFrom: gillian.schifreen@... []
Sent: 15/04/2015 11:59
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Truth, fiction Hicks, and TV

 

However, young people aren't very motivated by history generally.  Anyone who is on the TV who they can relate to and zazzes up the subject is in my opinion a benefit.  If this peaks their interest then they may well go on and find out a bit more (accurate) information on the subject.
Gillian.

What I've found helps is to check an author's -- any author's -- primary sources. Shakespeare is not a primary source.

If an author holds up More and Shakespeare as their sources, I know immediately they're not reliable because More and Shakespeare are not primary historical sources. They aren't even secondary (hearsay) historical sources.

And yet...Dan Jones (and others) gets away with it; his audience thinks he's writing history when he's in there rewriting history. The more you dive into the maze that is The Matter of Richard III, the more you'll wish there were more primary sources and not so much propaganda and so many private agendas -- which today includes selling books rather than searching for and presenting whatever actual truth we can still find in the murky maze.


---In , <davetheslave44@...> wrote :

Ok, but I've only lately been 'sussing out' Dan Jones, so to speak. I've only recently discovered him, his books, so realize he's not quite the 'full shilling' when it comes down to historical matters. Evidently, you've known this for some time.Dave



On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, 1:39, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:

Oh, for goodness sake Dave, Shakespeare said Henry V was a hero and a great man with a wicked sense of humour!
You should know better than to challenge Dan Jones whose chief source it seems for medieval history is Shakespeare!
Paul


On 13/04/2015 14:31, David Butterworth davetheslave44@... [] wrote:
And he was on a dumb U S talk show promoting his most recent book, 'The Wars of the Roses,' saying what a marvelous king Henry V was. He left out that he was an adventurer, an opportunist and a warmonger. Because he was featuring his book, he was depicting the period as somewhat glamorous.Dave



On Saturday, 11 April 2015, 4:27, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


Mary equally frustrated. How do they get away with it? Dan Jones has just been on television strutting about the Tower telling his version of the Princes. They died in the Tower Shakespeare said , so it must be true.

The not giving a damn lot are the ones who get us all into trouble as they haven;t learned the lessons of the past, and so relive them. Again, and again.
Churchill was at Stalin's throat at the first opportunity and flanned the flames that produced the cold war. He never made any efforts to understand Russia or the Russian system, just hated the idea of Communism, and how dare all they Russians choose it. In stead of putting an arm around Gorbachev when the Berlin Wall came down the Americans shouted and screamed about how they'd beaten them, and it was an American victory, in spite of the collapse of Communism having nothing to do with them. America should have helped the Russians adjust to their new freedoms and encouraged them, not antagonised them, and then pulled all the east European countries into Nato and made the Russians feel even worse, something Reagan had promised Gorbie he would never do! Then  why does America finds it perfectly fine for Israel to have Atomic bombs but will not permit other Middle Eastern nations to develop them and hold up their hands in shock when they try? Why does American insist on intervening in the politics of other countries? Do they not yet understand that this is why so many hate them?
If only more people would read history, and not the Bible stories as justification or certain acts, the world would be a better and safer place.
And isn't it written large somewhere that all men are created equal? recent addendum - bankers and rich people are more equal than the rest of us!
Paul

On 15/04/2015 15:02, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
I find it strange the way some people are really interested in history and others don't give a damn.
I suppose we all get more interested as we get older.
I have been fascinated with the subject ever since I was a child, but neither of my daughters, who are both very bright, are very interested, even though my eldest has asked to go to Leicester with me to see Richard's tomb. However, her 8 year old son Jack just loves the subject and was telling me all about "Henry VIII who had lots of wives" when he was about 5.
He watched all the Channel 4 programmes about Richard, and bought a book about his reign.
I have two granddaughters too, so I will continue to encourage them although they are rather young yet.
I think it is a pity about Dan Jones, Michael Wood was handsome, gorgeous, and accurate, but perhaps that combination doesn't happen very often!

Jess From: gillian.schifreen@... []
Sent: 15/04/2015 11:59
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Truth, fiction Hicks, and TV

  However, young people aren't very motivated by history generally.  Anyone who is on the TV who they can relate to and zazzes up the subject is in my opinion a benefit.  If this peaks their interest then they may well go on and find out a bit more (accurate) information on the subject.
Gillian.

i am a little it late to the conversation and apologize if this has been mentioned before but i truly do not know how can anyone use Shakespeare as a historical source? even before Richards remains where found i had read someplace that it was agreed that his description, as provided by Shakespeare, could not be 100% trusted due to the obvious fact that he was writing for the descendant of Tudors and due to that would make them look better and everyone that was against them worse. so if you are writing a book how can you use someone as a source that everyone agrees can not be taken as a accurate source.

From: "wednesday.mac@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Truth, fiction Hicks, and TV

What I've found helps is to check an author's -- any author's -- primary sources. Shakespeare is not a primary source.

If an author holds up More and Shakespeare as their sources, I know immediately they're not reliable because More and Shakespeare are not primary historical sources. They aren't even secondary (hearsay) historical sources.

And yet...Dan Jones (and others) gets away with it; his audience thinks he's writing history when he's in there rewriting history. The more you dive into the maze that is The Matter of Richard III, the more you'll wish there were more primary sources and not so much propaganda and so many private agendas -- which today includes selling books rather than searching for and presenting whatever actual truth we can still find in the murky maze.


---In , <davetheslave44@...> wrote :

Ok, but I've only lately been 'sussing out' Dan Jones, so to speak. I've only recently discovered him, his books, so realize he's not quite the 'full shilling' when it comes down to historical matters. Evidently, you've known this for some time.Dave



On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, 1:39, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:

Oh, for goodness sake Dave, Shakespeare said Henry V was a hero and a great man with a wicked sense of humour!
You should know better than to challenge Dan Jones whose chief source it seems for medieval history is Shakespeare!
Paul




On 13/04/2015 14:31, David Butterworth davetheslave44@... [] wrote:
And he was on a dumb U S talk show promoting his most recent book, 'The Wars of the Roses,' saying what a marvelous king Henry V was. He left out that he was an adventurer, an opportunist and a warmonger. Because he was featuring his book, he was depicting the period as somewhat glamorous.Dave



On Saturday, 11 April 2015, 4:27, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


Mary equally frustrated. How do they get away with it? Dan Jones has just been on television strutting about the Tower telling his version of the Princes. They died in the Tower Shakespeare said , so it must be true.

I have no problem with Henry v being praised for the warrior King he was, it was expected in the middle ages, but I suspect that he did not mention the terrible atrocities committed by the same king and his family. Caans for example, where several thousand women and children and old people were hurded into the town square and butchered on the orders of Henry's brother, but most certainly approved by the King. The slaughter only stopped when Henry came across a mother who had been beheaded with her infant still feeding at her breast. How such conduct could be praised by a historian, when it even broke the rules of war at the time, is horrifying. Now I am not suggesting that Hicks is affirming such terrible atrocities, but by praising the war he is condoning this. As academics you are meant to analyse history but surely this does not include lauding kings for acts that were disastrous for the country and led to the high loss of human life. I would not praise any party for the wars of the roses, although I would accept that they were probably inevitable given the entrenched positions of York and the Lancastrians. Margaret of Anjou was never going to accept the disinheritance of her son, York believed that he had the better claim, and had forved an agreement that he would succeed Henry Vi. All attempts to avoid the war failed, despite Yorks efforts, the incompetent king, the ambitious Warwick all forced the country into a war it could ill afford. However out of the wars emerged a stable and capable ruler, even if the house of York was to implode in the end. To be fair to York, during the brief periods that he was in charge as a protector, he proved himself an able ruler. Whatever the justification for the wars between the Yorkist and Lancastrians, it has to be condemned for the appalling loss of life, slaughter on an unprecedented scale by fellow countrymen, often members of the same family fighting for opposite sides, and the way it tore the country apart for over thirty years. No historian can justify praising the starting of the horrors of war.
TV documentaries and drama love to by into myths, the more dramatic and far fetched the better. They often fail to check sources and facts, the result being sloppy errors being presented as history and given authority by so called experts or researcher and so the myth is now converted into fact that is believed by viewers who are none the wiser, just because some paid professional says it is so. I don't know where Michael Hicks said this, nor have I seen the Mary Queen of Scots doc but from what you have said, the researchers have not read the evidence. As you say Mary removed her black outet robe to reveal the red dress for martyrdom under it, and although we cannot be certain, she most probably did speak somewhat with a French accent. She was six when she left Scotland and 18/19 when she came home. Her dress and ways were French, I could well imagine that her accent was, although this could also have been lost in time. Documentaries have a duty to get all of the facts correct, this is how many people learn, they certainly are not taught history in school. And writers and media who laud and praise Shakespeare as anything more than a brilliant producer of excellent and masterly plays are cookoo.

---In , <bale475@...> wrote :

Hicks is at it again, showing off his historical weight by praising
Henry V, a "hardy perennial in terms of English patriotism", lauding him
because he resumed the Hundred Years War and was well deserving of
Shakespeare's commemoration.
Hicks quoting Shakespeare as a source again! such a good historian
Hicks, eh? Such good research he does! Such good sources he uses!

Meanwhile a television special about Mary Queen of Scots begins with her
kneeling down to be beheaded wearing black, when it is on record she
shocked the onlookers at her execution by wearing scarlet, the Catholic
colour of martyrdom. On the soundtrack she speaks with a Scottish
accent, when having lived in France for most of her first 17 years, she
always spoke with French accent.
One wonders why they pay researchers sometimes.

Paul
[frustrated!]

While I do agree with what you are saying, I was trying to imply that Henry V, characteristic of some medieval monarchs, took the policy of warfare and war making to the other extreme. Warfare isn't only horrific in terns of slaughter and loss of life but is also expensive. Richard Coeur de Lion, for example, had an unquenchable thirst for war that he spent most of his reign neglecting the affairs at home. His brother's style of kingship was such that it incited baronial rebellion. And Edward 1st reacted to his father's example of weak monarchy to the other extreme, smashing the Welsh and the Scots. Then there were the reigns of Edward II and Richard II that resulted in the loss of their thrones. If Richard's father hadn't died so early, things might have been different for that monarch, but I think it would have been difficult, or taken a person of certain quality, to strike a sensible balance between strong, astute and sensible kingship.



On Friday, 24 April 2015, 8:58, poohlandeva <[email protected]> wrote:


I have no problem with Henry v being praised for the warrior King he was, it was expected in the middle ages, but I suspect that he did not mention the terrible atrocities committed by the same king and his family. Caans for example, where several thousand women and children and old people were hurded into the town square and butchered on the orders of Henry's brother, but most certainly approved by the King. The slaughter only stopped when Henry came across a mother who had been beheaded with her infant still feeding at her breast. How such conduct could be praised by a historian, when it even broke the rules of war at the time, is horrifying. Now I am not suggesting that Hicks is affirming such terrible atrocities, but by praising the war he is condoning this. As academics you are meant to analyse history but surely this does not include lauding kings for acts that were disastrous for the country and led to the high loss of human life. I would not praise any party for the wars of the roses, although I would accept that they were probably inevitable given the entrenched positions of York and the Lancastrians. Margaret of Anjou was never going to accept the disinheritance of her son, York believed that he had the better claim, and had forved an agreement that he would succeed Henry Vi. All attempts to avoid the war failed, despite Yorks efforts, the incompetent king, the ambitious Warwick all forced the country into a war it could ill afford. However out of the wars emerged a stable and capable ruler, even if the house of York was to implode in the end. To be fair to York, during the brief periods that he was in charge as a protector, he proved himself an able ruler. Whatever the justification for the wars between the Yorkist and Lancastrians, it has to be condemned for the appalling loss of life, slaughter on an unprecedented scale by fellow countrymen, often members of the same family fighting for opposite sides, and the way it tore the country apart for over thirty years. No historian can justify praising the starting of the horrors of war.
TV documentaries and drama love to by into myths, the more dramatic and far fetched the better. They often fail to check sources and facts, the result being sloppy errors being presented as history and given authority by so called experts or researcher and so the myth is now converted into fact that is believed by viewers who are none the wiser, just because some paid professional says it is so. I don't know where Michael Hicks said this, nor have I seen the Mary Queen of Scots doc but from what you have said, the researchers have not read the evidence. As you say Mary removed her black outet robe to reveal the red dress for martyrdom under it, and although we cannot be certain, she most probably did speak somewhat with a French accent. She was six when she left Scotland and 18/19 when she came home. Her dress and ways were French, I could well imagine that her accent was, although this could also have been lost in time. Documentaries have a duty to get all of the facts correct, this is how many people learn, they certainly are not taught history in school. And writers and media who laud and praise Shakespeare as anything more than a brilliant producer of excellent and masterly plays are cookoo.

---In , <bale475@...> wrote :

Hicks is at it again, showing off his historical weight by praising
Henry V, a "hardy perennial in terms of English patriotism", lauding him
because he resumed the Hundred Years War and was well deserving of
Shakespeare's commemoration.
Hicks quoting Shakespeare as a source again! such a good historian
Hicks, eh? Such good research he does! Such good sources he uses!

Meanwhile a television special about Mary Queen of Scots begins with her
kneeling down to be beheaded wearing black, when it is on record she
shocked the onlookers at her execution by wearing scarlet, the Catholic
colour of martyrdom. On the soundtrack she speaks with a Scottish
accent, when having lived in France for most of her first 17 years, she
always spoke with French accent.
One wonders why they pay researchers sometimes.

Paul
[frustrated!]