A New Member with a Question

Hello there everybody!!! I am new to this group and would like to
start off with a little question. In " The Trial of Richard III",
in the section about jury selection, it was noted that Richard III
had a certain appeal for women. Quite why this is was not
explained. Anybody any thoughts on this ?

Angela

amertzanis said:
>
>
>
> Hello there everybody!!! I am new to this group and would like to
> start off with a little question. In " The Trial of Richard III",
> in the section about jury selection, it was noted that Richard III
> had a certain appeal for women. Quite why this is was not
> explained. Anybody any thoughts on this ?
>

Hi, Angela. I was about to quip that as women, we have lots of personal
experience with being treated unfairly, so we have a special sympathy for
a fellow who can't respond to his unfair treatment, being dead. However,
there may be more than a little truth in that quip...


--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)

--- In , "Laura Blanchard"



So true! :)

And it may also owe a little something to the fact that some of us
at least came to appreciate Richard initially via the medium of
historical novels. As a pre-teen, I know I had a powerful crush on
Inspector Grant, in that seminal book by Josephine Tey and I found
no reason then to debate his findings re Richard. Similarly, a few
years later, a weekly magazine here in Australia serialised a novel
about 'Dickon' and I loved our charismatic hero to bits!

Of course, we all later move on to the serious stuff - even to the
extent of attempting to learn Latin! - but, I maintain, historical
novels and their capacity engage the imagination, to create empathy
and engender sympathy have played their part in why at least some of
us females are staunch Ricardians now.

Ana

--- In , oz_rain_walker
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Laura Blanchard"
>
>
>
> So true! :)
>
> And it may also owe a little something to the fact that some of us
> at least came to appreciate Richard initially via the medium of
> historical novels. As a pre-teen, I know I had a powerful crush on
> Inspector Grant, in that seminal book by Josephine Tey and I found
> no reason then to debate his findings re Richard. Similarly, a few
> years later, a weekly magazine here in Australia serialised a
novel
> about 'Dickon' and I loved our charismatic hero to bits!
>
> Of course, we all later move on to the serious stuff - even to the
> extent of attempting to learn Latin! - but, I maintain, historical
> novels and their capacity engage the imagination, to create
empathy
> and engender sympathy have played their part in why at least some
of
> us females are staunch Ricardians now.
>
> Ana


Well I am not sure about the role of historical novels...well at
least not in my case. I don't really like women's fiction and this
is certainly not how I came to be introduced to the "realm of
Richard" so to speak. The notion that Richard III has a special
appeal for women surprised me because MOST people perceive him to be
a child murderer. A good reason for women to hate him all the more I
would have thought.

Is the appeal to do with the fact that we were all brought up with
the idea of Richard being deformed and then as we can see he was
actually an attractive man. A sort of frog prince notion, I
expect. Or is it the wish to mother a "bad lad" and bring out the
best in him. I must admit I am puzzled

Angela

I have always found Richard to be a very attractive man, for many reasons, one being his bravery on the field of battle, two being his loyalty to his family, three being his love for his wife and child, four being the compassionate way that he treated Queen Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters and five being his attitude and compassion towards the females he came across, also the fair justice that he dealt out to the common people under his rule, I understood that the "so called" hump on his back was an enlarged muscle from heaving the sword in battle for many hours, days on end and that it got bigger and bigger with each painter throughout the Tudor period, I do not think that he was a cruel man and do not believe that he had the 'young princes' killed or the Lord Hastings, I believe he tried desperately to save his brother 'Clarence' from death, he was very much loved up in York and the North and during his 2 years of reign appeared to be a very good and fair King, one wonders
what the future would have dealt out if he had reigned on for many years. Each time I try to see Richard in my mind's eye all I can ever see is the great Sir Laurence Olivier and his magnificent [maybe not rightful] betrayal of him on film..........Liz

amertzanis <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , oz_rain_walker
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Laura Blanchard"
>
>
>
> So true! :)
>
> And it may also owe a little something to the fact that some of us
> at least came to appreciate Richard initially via the medium of
> historical novels. As a pre-teen, I know I had a powerful crush on
> Inspector Grant, in that seminal book by Josephine Tey and I found
> no reason then to debate his findings re Richard. Similarly, a few
> years later, a weekly magazine here in Australia serialised a
novel
> about 'Dickon' and I loved our charismatic hero to bits!
>
> Of course, we all later move on to the serious stuff - even to the
> extent of attempting to learn Latin! - but, I maintain, historical
> novels and their capacity engage the imagination, to create
empathy
> and engender sympathy have played their part in why at least some
of
> us females are staunch Ricardians now.
>
> Ana


Well I am not sure about the role of historical novels...well at
least not in my case. I don't really like women's fiction and this
is certainly not how I came to be introduced to the "realm of
Richard" so to speak. The notion that Richard III has a special
appeal for women surprised me because MOST people perceive him to be
a child murderer. A good reason for women to hate him all the more I
would have thought.

Is the appeal to do with the fact that we were all brought up with
the idea of Richard being deformed and then as we can see he was
actually an attractive man. A sort of frog prince notion, I
expect. Or is it the wish to mother a "bad lad" and bring out the
best in him. I must admit I am puzzled

Angela




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.




Lizzy Foley SEMPER EADEM..





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

Hello Angela,

a lot of women love "bad guys" (even in real life - famous murderers
in prison receive many love letters from women). Maybe it's their
sinister sex appeal. To have sex with the devil is a much bigger
thrill than to be in love with a saint, isn't it? ;-)

Diana

But Richard wasn't a bad guy, was he?
Paul

On Feb 28, 2005, at 09:30, Diana wrote:

>
>
> Hello Angela,
>
> a lot of women love "bad guys" (even in real life - famous murderers
> in prison receive many love letters from women). Maybe it's their
> sinister sex appeal. To have sex with the devil is a much bigger
> thrill than to be in love with a saint, isn't it? ;-)
>
> Diana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> But Richard wasn't a bad guy, was he?
> Paul
>

Whether we like it or not MOST people people do think of Richard as
a scheming murderer, and barring major new evidence, that is the way
its gonna stay.

Angela



> On Feb 28, 2005, at 09:30, Diana wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello Angela,
> >
> > a lot of women love "bad guys" (even in real life - famous
murderers
> > in prison receive many love letters from women). Maybe it's their
> > sinister sex appeal. To have sex with the devil is a much bigger
> > thrill than to be in love with a saint, isn't it? ;-)
> >
> > Diana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Well, coming from the Phantom of the Opera fandom, I can state that weirdly enough, a character's "deformities" can end up making him even more attractive to women.

I didn't come to find him attractive until I read The Sunne in Splendour, however, and the relationship between Richard and Anne in that book could have been just as at home in a pulpy romance novel. But I am glad to discover I'm not the only one here suffering from what Elizabeth Peters called (in The Murders of Richard III) "historical necrophilia".

amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> But Richard wasn't a bad guy, was he?
> Paul
>

Whether we like it or not MOST people people do think of Richard as
a scheming murderer, and barring major new evidence, that is the way
its gonna stay.

Angela



> On Feb 28, 2005, at 09:30, Diana wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello Angela,
> >
> > a lot of women love "bad guys" (even in real life - famous
murderers
> > in prison receive many love letters from women). Maybe it's their
> > sinister sex appeal. To have sex with the devil is a much bigger
> > thrill than to be in love with a saint, isn't it? ;-)
> >
> > Diana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >




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.

On Feb 28, 2005, at 20:13, amertzanis wrote:

> Whether we like it or not MOST people people do think of Richard as
> a scheming murderer, and barring major new evidence, that is the way
> its gonna stay.

Ah Angela, a positive attitude to bringing about change eh? :-)
We have changed a lot of minds over the years, and I for one am not
giving up.
Paul

I've certainly converted a few innocent and impressionable young minds at school!

PS-Our Shakespeare class is performing it, and none of the boys wanted to play him, so I gladly volunteered. If I can fix my digital camera, I'll send a picture of myself in costume... It's quite amusing. I think the wig was last used in a school production of Chicago... oh dear.

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:

On Feb 28, 2005, at 20:13, amertzanis wrote:

> Whether we like it or not MOST people people do think of Richard as
> a scheming murderer, and barring major new evidence, that is the way
> its gonna stay.

Ah Angela, a positive attitude to bringing about change eh? :-)
We have changed a lot of minds over the years, and I for one am not
giving up.
Paul


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.

Shakespeare's Richard played by Catherine Zeta-Jones? The mind doth
boggleth!!
Break a leg!
Paul

On Feb 28, 2005, at 23:59, Megan Lerseth wrote:

> I think the wig was last used in a school production of Chicago... oh
> dear.

> But Richard wasn't a bad guy, was he?
> Paul

Hello Paul,

certainly not :-) But most of us got to know Richard through
Shakespeare's villain or the famous film versions. Let's face it: The
real Richard is a little bit nerdy compared to his sinister fictional
character ;-)

Nerdy? Interesting word to use.
Maybe he appears that way when painted as the romantic hero of some
female authored fiction, but not the real man.
Paul

On Mar 1, 2005, at 13:55, Diana wrote:

>
>
>> But Richard wasn't a bad guy, was he?
>> Paul
>
> Hello Paul,
>
> certainly not :-) But most of us got to know Richard through
> Shakespeare's villain or the famous film versions. Let's face it: The
> real Richard is a little bit nerdy compared to his sinister fictional
> character ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2005, at 20:13, amertzanis wrote:
>
> > Whether we like it or not MOST people people do think of Richard
as
> > a scheming murderer, and barring major new evidence, that is the
way
> > its gonna stay.
>
> Ah Angela, a positive attitude to bringing about change eh? :-)
> We have changed a lot of minds over the years, and I for one am
not
> giving up.
> Paul

Yes I suppose I am quite pessimistic about the public perception of
Richard ever changing much and as a new Ricardian I suppose I should
be full of fire and optimism...but I am not. Especially when I see
what has been shown on television in the last couple of years. I
guess I am thnking of Nigel Spivey in particular trotting out the
usual old story in "Kings and Queens" and Schama's one paragraph
character assassination in his "History of Britain"...or perhaps
more accurately the "Bits of the History of Britain He Could Be
Bothered With". And yet these were the programmes I saw and many
other people did as well. Who on earth is going to even think of
challenging this stuff when it is given to them as serious history?
Anyhow, I did hear that Terry Jones presented a different view
(anybody know if "Medieval Lives" is on DVD yet) and looking through
the archives I was amused and gladdened to hear of "Brunhild's"
successful conversion of her students. So maybe I should cheer up a
bit.

Angela

> Nerdy? Interesting word to use.

Excuse me, I'm German & my English ist sometimes not sophisticated
enough to express exactly what I want to say...compared to the
villain described by More, Shakespeare et al. the real Richard, dry &
prudent, seems to be a little bit boring.

> Maybe he appears that way when painted as the romantic hero of some
> female authored fiction, but not the real man.

Female authored fiction? Is there any? Sorry for this naive question,
but the only fiction I read about Richard III. are Shakespeare &
Bulwer-Lytton - both definitely male ;-)

Regards
Diana

--- In , "Diana"
<dedalus@g...> wrote:
>
> > Nerdy? Interesting word to use.
>
> Excuse me, I'm German & my English ist sometimes not sophisticated
> enough to express exactly what I want to say...compared to the
> villain described by More, Shakespeare et al. the real Richard,
dry &
> prudent, seems to be a little bit boring.
>
> > Maybe he appears that way when painted as the romantic hero of
some
> > female authored fiction, but not the real man.
>
> Female authored fiction? Is there any? Sorry for this naive
question,
> but the only fiction I read about Richard III. are Shakespeare &
> Bulwer-Lytton - both definitely male ;-)
>

Well, try The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Penman, We Speak no
Treason by Rosemary Hawley Jarman and the Seventh Son by Reay
Tannahill. The first two portray a perfect Richard. He is less
saintly in The Seventh Son.

Just out of interest, what is it that attracted a German to the
subject of Richard III?? I tried explaining my fascination to a
well educated and Anglophile German recently. He had no idea of
what I was talking

Angela

Hello Angela,

> Well, try The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Penman, We Speak no
> Treason by Rosemary Hawley Jarman and the Seventh Son by Reay
> Tannahill. The first two portray a perfect Richard. He is less
> saintly in The Seventh Son.

ah, thank you for the examples. Here in Germany it is not easy to
find translated non-fiction about Richard III., not to mention non-
fiction, except Shakespeare.

> Just out of interest, what is it that attracted a German to the
> subject of Richard III?? I tried explaining my fascination to a
> well educated and Anglophile German recently. He had no idea of
> what I was talking

Oh, our German branch of members of the R-III.-Society is not so
small, I think ;-) My fascination started with Shakespeare in 1984.
No internet at that time, no international booksellers at that time
in the provincial town where I was born. So for years I had no other
sources than the play & the BBC version with Ron Cook on TV ;-) I was
interested in the history of the middle ages and the early modern
times in general. Err, let me say: you have the sexier villain ;-)
All jokes aside: I think, my fascination for Richard III. is
not "german" in particular, not different from the fascination of the
English Richard III.-Supporters.

Would be interesting to read the opinion of the other German-speakers
in this group? Let's address them: Könnt Ihr Euch mal dazu äußern,
Landsleute?

Kind regards,
Diana

Huh, I found Penman's Richard a very good man, but certainly not perfect!

amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
--- In , "Diana"
<dedalus@g...> wrote:
>
> > Nerdy? Interesting word to use.
>
> Excuse me, I'm German & my English ist sometimes not sophisticated
> enough to express exactly what I want to say...compared to the
> villain described by More, Shakespeare et al. the real Richard,
dry &
> prudent, seems to be a little bit boring.
>
> > Maybe he appears that way when painted as the romantic hero of
some
> > female authored fiction, but not the real man.
>
> Female authored fiction? Is there any? Sorry for this naive
question,
> but the only fiction I read about Richard III. are Shakespeare &
> Bulwer-Lytton - both definitely male ;-)
>

Well, try The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Penman, We Speak no
Treason by Rosemary Hawley Jarman and the Seventh Son by Reay
Tannahill. The first two portray a perfect Richard. He is less
saintly in The Seventh Son.

Just out of interest, what is it that attracted a German to the
subject of Richard III?? I tried explaining my fascination to a
well educated and Anglophile German recently. He had no idea of
what I was talking

Angela





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.

Diana wrote:

Here in Germany it is not easy to
find translated non-fiction about Richard III., not to mention non-
fiction, except Shakespeare.

Not long ago I had an enquiry from a major German publisher interested in translating _The Adventures of Alianore Audley_. So far I have not heard anything more, probably because they can't quite get their head around how to translate the weird humour. However it implies that German publishers are interested in Ricardian fiction, and by extension that they think they've got a market for it. No one in their right mind is going to pay for an expensive translation job unless they think the chosen book is going to sell a lot of copies.

Regards
Brian Wainwright

--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> Huh, I found Penman's Richard a very good man, but certainly not
perfect!
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Diana"
> <dedalus@g...> wrote:
> >
> > > Nerdy? Interesting word to use.
> >
> > Excuse me, I'm German & my English ist sometimes not
sophisticated
> > enough to express exactly what I want to say...compared to the
> > villain described by More, Shakespeare et al. the real Richard,
> dry &
> > prudent, seems to be a little bit boring.
> >
> > > Maybe he appears that way when painted as the romantic hero of
> some

I certainly found him too good to be true in Penman's book, even
though I really enjoyed reading it. When he admitted that he really
did want the crown as well as believing he had a moral right to it,
I remember thinking he seemed a bit more...well...normal.

Angela
> > > female authored fiction, but not the real man.
> >
> > Female authored fiction? Is there any? Sorry for this naive
> question,
> > but the only fiction I read about Richard III. are Shakespeare &
> > Bulwer-Lytton - both definitely male ;-)
> >
>
> Well, try The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Penman, We Speak no
> Treason by Rosemary Hawley Jarman and the Seventh Son by Reay
> Tannahill. The first two portray a perfect Richard. He is less
> saintly in The Seventh Son.
>
> Just out of interest, what is it that attracted a German to the
> subject of Richard III?? I tried explaining my fascination to a
> well educated and Anglophile German recently. He had no idea of
> what I was talking
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>

Terry Jones was the only one who had done his homework. He also wanted
to present the story of his three Richards, not use it as vehicle for
himself, as in the case of the other two presenters, and more recently
Tony Robinson.
Paul

On Mar 1, 2005, at 19:56, amertzanis wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2005, at 20:13, amertzanis wrote:
>>
>>> Whether we like it or not MOST people people do think of Richard
> as
>>> a scheming murderer, and barring major new evidence, that is the
> way
>>> its gonna stay.
>>
>> Ah Angela, a positive attitude to bringing about change eh? :-)
>> We have changed a lot of minds over the years, and I for one am
> not
>> giving up.
>> Paul
>
> Yes I suppose I am quite pessimistic about the public perception of
> Richard ever changing much and as a new Ricardian I suppose I should
> be full of fire and optimism...but I am not. Especially when I see
> what has been shown on television in the last couple of years. I
> guess I am thnking of Nigel Spivey in particular trotting out the
> usual old story in "Kings and Queens" and Schama's one paragraph
> character assassination in his "History of Britain"...or perhaps
> more accurately the "Bits of the History of Britain He Could Be
> Bothered With". And yet these were the programmes I saw and many
> other people did as well. Who on earth is going to even think of
> challenging this stuff when it is given to them as serious history?
> Anyhow, I did hear that Terry Jones presented a different view
> (anybody know if "Medieval Lives" is on DVD yet) and looking through
> the archives I was amused and gladdened to hear of "Brunhild's"
> successful conversion of her students. So maybe I should cheer up a
> bit.
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If I am correct, Terry Jones did his degree in English, not history
and as you said, he was the only one who had done his homework. An
argument for taking history out of the hands of the so-called
serious historians .......only kidding. Seriously though, after
watching the other programmes mentioned (Schama and Spivey) and then
reading round on the subjuect, the overall impression I got was the
sheer laziness of those involved in making it. They were done for
people (like us) who supposedly know nothing about the subject and
just want a few facts. Doubts and intelligent debate not encouraged.
OK I will get off my soapbox now!!!!

Angela







--- In , Paul Trevor Bale






<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Terry Jones was the only one who had done his homework. He also
wanted
> to present the story of his three Richards, not use it as vehicle
for
> himself, as in the case of the other two presenters, and more
recently
> Tony Robinson.
> Paul
>
> On Mar 1, 2005, at 19:56, amertzanis wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 28, 2005, at 20:13, amertzanis wrote:
> >>
> >>> Whether we like it or not MOST people people do think of
Richard
> > as
> >>> a scheming murderer, and barring major new evidence, that is
the
> > way
> >>> its gonna stay.
> >>
> >> Ah Angela, a positive attitude to bringing about change eh? :-)
> >> We have changed a lot of minds over the years, and I for one am
> > not
> >> giving up.
> >> Paul
> >
> > Yes I suppose I am quite pessimistic about the public perception
of
> > Richard ever changing much and as a new Ricardian I suppose I
should
> > be full of fire and optimism...but I am not. Especially when I
see
> > what has been shown on television in the last couple of years. I
> > guess I am thnking of Nigel Spivey in particular trotting out the
> > usual old story in "Kings and Queens" and Schama's one paragraph
> > character assassination in his "History of Britain"...or perhaps
> > more accurately the "Bits of the History of Britain He Could Be
> > Bothered With". And yet these were the programmes I saw and many
> > other people did as well. Who on earth is going to even think of
> > challenging this stuff when it is given to them as serious
history?
> > Anyhow, I did hear that Terry Jones presented a different view
> > (anybody know if "Medieval Lives" is on DVD yet) and looking
through
> > the archives I was amused and gladdened to hear of "Brunhild's"
> > successful conversion of her students. So maybe I should cheer
up a
> > bit.
> >
> > Angela
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Well, I'm not German but I'm Italian and I'm one of the only 2
members in Italy of the Society. And I suppose that the other member
is an Englishman who lives here...

My fascination began when I read The Black Arrow by Stevenson, who
gives a little but meaning portrayal of Richard as a young army
leader. Then I read Shakespeare (I was 13), and then Pollard's RIII
and the Princes in the Tower, which I found in the British Council's
library in my city. Until I read Pollard, I didn't know at all that
there was a revisionist version of the wicked uncle story. Thus I
had been firstly enthralled by the Shakespearean villain.

Then I went to England and there I bought a lot of other books about
Richard, Kendall, Potter and so on, and I became a Ricardian.

In Italy very little is known about Richard and all the
encyclopaedias and school books report the traditional version.
There are no translated biographies nor fiction. All the books I
have I bought them in England or by Internet. I wonder why, with all
the biographies and historical fiction currently published in Italy,
couldn't they publish something about Richard.

Cecilia

On Mar 2, 2005, at 20:30, amertzanis wrote:

> Seriously though, after
> watching the other programmes mentioned (Schama and Spivey) and then
> reading round on the subjuect, the overall impression I got was the
> sheer laziness of those involved in making it. They were done for
> people (like us) who supposedly know nothing about the subject and
> just want a few facts.
Well no, they were done for the presenter and the crew. William the
Conqueror? Oooh a trip to France! Lots of wine and good food on
expenses! Richard the Lionheart? Oooh! Trip to Israel and Jordan?
> Doubts and intelligent debate not encouraged.
Of course not!
Being in the business, I know what I'm talking about. I was turned down
for a series about Spain recently because I love and know Spain, and
speak Spanish! Work that one out if you can. It used to be at the BBC
that if you wanted to work on history programmes you had to make the
powers think you hated the subject!
> OK I will get off my soapbox now!!!!
Please Angela, the more soapbox the better! Shout all the louder!
It may help, and I am fed up thinking I am a lone voice crying in the
wilderness!
Paul

--- In , "Cecilia Latella"
<cabepfir@y...> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not German but I'm Italian and I'm one of the only 2
> members in Italy of the Society. And I suppose that the other
member
> is an Englishman who lives here...
>
> My fascination began when I read The Black Arrow by Stevenson, who
> gives a little but meaning portrayal of Richard as a young army
> leader. Then I read Shakespeare (I was 13), and then Pollard's RIII
> and the Princes in the Tower, which I found in the British
Council's
> library in my city. Until I read Pollard, I didn't know at all that
> there was a revisionist version of the wicked uncle story. Thus I
> had been firstly enthralled by the Shakespearean villain.
>
> Then I went to England and there I bought a lot of other books
about
> Richard, Kendall, Potter and so on, and I became a Ricardian.
>
> In Italy very little is known about Richard and all the
> encyclopaedias and school books report the traditional version.
> There are no translated biographies nor fiction. All the books I
> have I bought them in England or by Internet. I wonder why, with
all
> the biographies and historical fiction currently published in
Italy,
> couldn't they publish something about Richard.
>
> Cecilia

Speaking as a Group Chairman, one of my members is German by birth.
Richard seems to appeal to German people in much larger numbers than
other Continentals - this was also true of his lifetime. Can anyone
explain this?

Stephen

is this maybe because the Germans themselves are a misunderstood
people. There is an awful lot of prejudice against them as a nation
Just like Richard

Angela


--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Cecilia Latella"
> <cabepfir@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'm not German but I'm Italian and I'm one of the only 2
> > members in Italy of the Society. And I suppose that the other
> member
> > is an Englishman who lives here...
> >
> > My fascination began when I read The Black Arrow by Stevenson,
who
> > gives a little but meaning portrayal of Richard as a young army
> > leader. Then I read Shakespeare (I was 13), and then Pollard's
RIII
> > and the Princes in the Tower, which I found in the British
> Council's
> > library in my city. Until I read Pollard, I didn't know at all
that
> > there was a revisionist version of the wicked uncle story. Thus
I
> > had been firstly enthralled by the Shakespearean villain.
> >
> > Then I went to England and there I bought a lot of other books
> about
> > Richard, Kendall, Potter and so on, and I became a Ricardian.
> >
> > In Italy very little is known about Richard and all the
> > encyclopaedias and school books report the traditional version.
> > There are no translated biographies nor fiction. All the books I
> > have I bought them in England or by Internet. I wonder why, with
> all
> > the biographies and historical fiction currently published in
> Italy,
> > couldn't they publish something about Richard.
> >
> > Cecilia
>
> Speaking as a Group Chairman, one of my members is German by
birth.
> Richard seems to appeal to German people in much larger numbers
than
> other Continentals - this was also true of his lifetime. Can
anyone
> explain this?
>
> Stephen

Hello Stephen,

> Speaking as a Group Chairman, one of my members is German by birth.
> Richard seems to appeal to German people in much larger numbers
than other Continentals - this was also true of his lifetime. Can
anyone explain this?

let me reflect this:

1.) Language: First of all, our languages share a long history,
English & German are part of the same family of languages. So for a
German it is much easier to learn English than to learn a Romanic
language like French or Italian (I was born in the far North of
Germany. The elder people there speak a dialect which sounds a little
bit like English with German pronounciation ;-). We learn English in
School, beginning at the age of 10, sometimes even earlier (except
the Germans who grow up in the former GDR, they learned Russian).
Part of our lessons is the English history. Later we read
Shakespeare. So we meet Richard twice while learning English.

2.) History: We share some history too: some of your kings & queens
were closely connected to Germany, consider the houses of Hanover &
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. So a lot of Germans are interested in English
History in general. Mini excursus: We're interested in the later
French History as well, especially in the Napoleonic Area, to which
Germany was closely connected too: The brother of Napoleon, Jerome,
was King of Westfalia etc.

3.) Mentality (difficult / diffuse point): Maybe the Germans are
closer to the gloomier Northern Countries of Europe than to the sunny
& fair Mediterranean countries. England & Germany share the gloomy
weather and even some gloomy words like "Weltschmerz" ;-)

What do you think about it?

Regards
Diana