Warning!

Hold on to your hats everyone! Starkey is beginning his second series
of Monarchy starting in the 1450s. So Yorkists beware!
Monday night on C4 in the UK.
Paul


"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...>
wrote:
> Hold on to your hats everyone! Starkey is beginning his second series
> of Monarchy starting in the 1450s. So Yorkists beware!
> Monday night on C4 in the UK.
> Paul
>
In the supplement that came today with Daily Mail the following quote from Starkey "It was
the perverting lure of the throne that took over Richards mind. Richards was the kind of
ambition that twists reality to fit his own prospects. He really did believe he was behaving
unselfishly in killing his two little nephews in the Tower. He pursuaded himself they were
illigitimate with no right to the throne, he had a moral responsibility to dispose of them
and make the throne his own. Noone else believed him. So he died paranoid maddened &
betrayed on battlefield by barons whom he never really trusted".

So now you know - because Starkey can read the thoughts of people that died 500 years
ago - genius or wot!
>

Perhaps it is simply best to imagine Starkey dressing up as Elizabeth
I, his hero, in private and cavorting about the house.
He shrinks as any kind of serious historian by reproducing such
drivel about Richard again and again, does he not?
Paul

On Sep 10, 2005, at 16:56, eileen wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...>
> wrote:
>
>> Hold on to your hats everyone! Starkey is beginning his second series
>> of Monarchy starting in the 1450s. So Yorkists beware!
>> Monday night on C4 in the UK.
>> Paul
>>
>>
> In the supplement that came today with Daily Mail the following
> quote from Starkey "It was
> the perverting lure of the throne that took over Richards mind.
> Richards was the kind of
> ambition that twists reality to fit his own prospects. He really
> did believe he was behaving
> unselfishly in killing his two little nephews in the Tower. He
> pursuaded himself they were
> illigitimate with no right to the throne, he had a moral
> responsibility to dispose of them
> and make the throne his own. Noone else believed him. So he died
> paranoid maddened &
> betrayed on battlefield by barons whom he never really trusted".
>
> So now you know - because Starkey can read the thoughts of people
> that died 500 years
> ago - genius or wot!
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Perhaps it is simply best to imagine Starkey dressing up as
Elizabeth
> I, his hero, in private and cavorting about the house.
> He shrinks as any kind of serious historian by reproducing such
> drivel about Richard again and again, does he not?
> Paul
>
> On Sep 10, 2005, at 16:56, eileen wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@b...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hold on to your hats everyone! Starkey is beginning his second
series
> >> of Monarchy starting in the 1450s. So Yorkists beware!
> >> Monday night on C4 in the UK.
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> > In the supplement that came today with Daily Mail the following
> > quote from Starkey "It was
> > the perverting lure of the throne that took over Richards mind.
> > Richards was the kind of
> > ambition that twists reality to fit his own prospects. He
really
> > did believe he was behaving
> > unselfishly in killing his two little nephews in the Tower. He
> > pursuaded himself they were
> > illigitimate with no right to the throne, he had a moral
> > responsibility to dispose of them
> > and make the throne his own. Noone else believed him. So he
died
> > paranoid maddened &
> > betrayed on battlefield by barons whom he never really trusted".
> >
> > So now you know - because Starkey can read the thoughts of
people
> > that died 500 years
> > ago - genius or wot!
> >
> >>Very worrying. Our problem is that Starkey really understands the
Tudors and his opinion of Richard is derived from the fact that he
likes them so much. Compare him with, for instance, Paul Johnson.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------
-
> > ~-->
> > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> > home page
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > ~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> you're never too old to launch your dreams

Can the C4 be petitioned for equal time access for opposing opinions, views?

Virginia

Over the years I have sent many proposals into Channel 4 telling the
real story. The last ended in the ghastly Toby Robinson programme.
I say no more.
Paul


On Sep 11, 2005, at 01:38, fairerichard3@... wrote:

> Can the C4 be petitioned for equal time access for opposing
> opinions, views?
>
> Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for
> Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/FXrMlA/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...>
wrote:
> Over the years I have sent many proposals into Channel 4 telling the
> real story. The last ended in the ghastly Toby Robinson programme.
> I say no more.
> Paul
>
> What to do??? Do you view this programme to see just exactly what rubbish/
codswallop/lies blah blah is going to emanate from Starkey's gob thus pushing up the
viewing numbers so Channel 4 think Oh good we will have Starkey back again people
enjoy his stuff (& probably pushing up his salary) OR do we steadfastly refuse to watch this
load of old tripe. Myself, I veer to the latter
Opinions please.

Eileen

> On Sep 11, 2005, at 01:38, fairerichard3@a... wrote:
>
> > Can the C4 be petitioned for equal time access for opposing
> > opinions, views?
> >
> > Virginia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> > ~-->
> > Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for
> > Good!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/FXrMlA/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/1WMplB/TM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> you're never too old to launch your dreams

Do Starkey's programmes rate well in Britain?

Does anyone know about how other historians or critics see the programmes?

I know that when the first series were shown here in Australia the critics were rather down on it . Historians here ignored it but English Monarchy is not a fashionable subject in this country.

Actually his comments about Richard sound familar. I'm sure someone a few years ago came out with some such rubbish so his tripe is not even original. The name of the other person had slipped my mind. I wonder why!

Helen

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> What to do??? Do you view this programme to see just exactly what rubbish/
codswallop/lies blah blah is going to emanate from Starkey's gob thus pushing up the
viewing numbers so Channel 4 think Oh good we will have Starkey back again people
enjoy his stuff (& probably pushing up his salary) OR do we steadfastly refuse to watch this
load of old tripe. Myself, I veer to the latter
Opinions please.

Eileen

SPONSORED LINKS


---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "richardiiisocietyUnited kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel forum" on the web.

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

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


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




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database.

--- In , Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@y...>
wrote:
> Do Starkey's programmes rate well in Britain?
>
> Does anyone know about how other historians or critics see the programmes?
>
> I know that when the first series were shown here in Australia the critics were rather
down on it . Historians here ignored it but English Monarchy is not a fashionable subject in
this country.
>
> Actually his comments about Richard sound familar. I'm sure someone a few years ago
came out with some such rubbish so his tripe is not even original. The name of the other
person had slipped my mind. I wonder why!
>
> Helen

Sorry I should not have used the word 'gob' - I am a disgrace to this Forum - but it just
makes my blood boil when someone who is supposed to be a historian is still spouting
these untruths/mistakes - whatever you want to call them. It is so damaging. In the
Daily Mail today for example Monarchy, which is being shown tonight is Pick of the Day -
with the following statement "when the king dies unexpectedly his two young sons are left
at the mercy of his brother, who seizes the throne and crowns himself Richard lll. As the
Tudors plot a coup, the Princes are thrown into the Tower - and we all know what
happened to them.....".
So there you have it when Richard takes the throne, legally, to save his life and save
England from the insecurities of a child king, he is a Usurper when the Weasle quite clearly
usurps it is called a coup. It is enough to make you weep .....

Helen - I do not know how other historians/critics rate Starkey or his programmes/books
but I do know that there will be thousands of viewers tuning in tonight who will,
unfortunately believe this slander/wicked lies.

How utterly Starkey underestimates mother love (something which I think has not altered a
great deal over the centuries) - would he care to explain how Elizabeth Woodville (hrdly a
wilting violet type) would allow her daughters to dance at Richard's court leave alone send
a message to her son Dorset telling him to return - Richard will treat him OK - if Richard
had killed her two little sons - I dont think so - Starkey maybe a historian but he seems to
have a very poor understanding of human nature.

Eileen


> eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> > What to do??? Do you view this programme to see just exactly what rubbish/
> codswallop/lies blah blah is going to emanate from Starkey's gob thus pushing up the
> viewing numbers so Channel 4 think Oh good we will have Starkey back again people
> enjoy his stuff (& probably pushing up his salary) OR do we steadfastly refuse to watch
this
> load of old tripe. Myself, I veer to the latter
> Opinions please.
>
> Eileen
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "richardiiisocietyUnited kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United
kingdom hotel forum" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor
Database.
>
>

Unfortunately, Starkey gets good audiences here for his programmes. They are not on the BBC but on Channel 4. He was on the radio earlier today spouting about revolution and the execution of Charles I.He's very conservative with a small and big c. The word revisionist is a swear word in his vocabulary.
On Sunday, September 11, 2005, at 06:46PM, Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:

>
><<Original Attached>>

--- In , Moira Winder
<moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, Starkey gets good audiences here for his programmes.
>They are not on the BBC but on Channel 4. He was on the radio earlier
>today spouting about revolution and the execution of Charles I.He's
>very conservative with a small and big c. The word revisionist is a
>swear word in his vocabulary.


I generally enjoy Starkey when he talks politics and society; his
conservatism has a healthy cynicism I like.
However I found the first series of Monarchy far too basic - a sort of
English history for idiots. There have been a good many of these shows
on in recent years, and together they show what a poor educator
Television really is. Even less populist TV such as the History Channel
always seems to skate over all but the basic details.
I was also outraged by the "Britain's Greatest Monarch" fiasco. How
could they possibly justify leaving out Alfred, the only English king
who could possibly deserve the title "Great".

I don't find Starkey's conservatism entertaining at all - nor do I find his history particularly scholarly or iun formative. He's the sort of idiot who criticuses the way history is taight and all he is interested in is the so called ' great' monarchs ( of his choice) Even his purile suggestion that Henry Tudor was unattractive and the Yorkist boys were 'good lookers' is a patronising way to present history. I have been trying to imagine him dressed as Elizabeth I. She's his favourite and there is a resemblance if you overlook the green teeth.
On Monday, September 12, 2005, at 10:21AM, theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

>
><<Original Attached>>

--- In , Moira Winder
<moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
I have been trying to imagine him dressed as Elizabeth I. She's his
favourite and there is a resemblance if you overlook the green teeth.


Hers or his?


Katy

Okay, I HAVE to see if this series is showing on any
US channel--reading your comments about how horrible
it is has been quite entertaining!! ;-)
Regards,
Rene'

--- Moira Winder <moirawinder.macmail@...> wrote:

> I don't find Starkey's conservatism entertaining at
> all - nor do I find his history particularly
> scholarly or iun formative. He's the sort of idiot
> who criticuses the way history is taight and all he
> is interested in is the so called ' great' monarchs
> ( of his choice) Even his purile suggestion that
> Henry Tudor was unattractive and the Yorkist boys
> were 'good lookers' is a patronising way to present
> history. I have been trying to imagine him dressed
> as Elizabeth I. She's his favourite and there is a
> resemblance if you overlook the green teeth.
> On Monday, September 12, 2005, at 10:21AM,
> theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><<Original Attached>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

Hers
On Monday, September 12, 2005, at 04:57PM, oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><<Original Attached>>

I went to school in the 1960s, and there was a fairly standard way of
going through English history since 1066, deriving largely from the
Victorian/Imperial world view, which clearly put most monarchs into
the "Good" and "Bad" camps. I subsequently did a lot of independent
reading and discovered that it wasn't really so black and white after
all.

Much of what I have seen of Starkey's programmes seems to hark back to
that old monochrome viewpoint. Once he got to 1483 and stated that
Richard became Protector because his supporters thought that he ought
to be, ignoring the fact that Edward's will appointed him to the
position, his ignorance and bias just made me more and more annoyed -
Richard was the obvious candidate for the disappearance of the
princes - Starkey seemed to carefully airbrush Buckingham from
history. The battle of Stoke went as well, and the identity of Perkin
Warbeck was an open and shut case. Either Starkey has no concept of
the impact of Tudor propaganda - repeating uncritically the words of
the sainted More - or he was deliberately peddling its lies and half-
truths. On balance he comes across as a rather poor historian. Only
his piece about Flitcroft and Henry VII's constitutional failings
lifted this programme above the standard of the "Horrible History"
series.

Richard


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Hold on to your hats everyone! Starkey is beginning his second
series
> of Monarchy starting in the 1450s. So Yorkists beware!
> Monday night on C4 in the UK.
> Paul
>
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"