Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hicks: straight from the horse'

I can answer that one. A year and a half ago, when I was researching Thomas Stafford, I noticed that he had a personal website, with help from his son.
I can guess what you are getting at but it doesn't seem to apply in the same way as to a historian named DS.
----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Hicks: straight from the horse's mouth


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
> After such a vitriolic "analysis" of Anne Neville's sexual
> psychology, one can't help wanting to psychoanalyse Michael Hicks
> himself. I never thought I'd find myself saying this sort of thing. I
> don't generally like personalised historian-bashing but he would
> appear to have channelled a lot of personal hang-ups into this.


Authors sometimes do subconsciously reveal their own biases and
attitudes in their works...but usually it is fiction writers who do
so. Historians are usually more constrained by the facts.

I was prey to some base thoughts about Hicks, myself. I wonder if he
is married.

Katy





SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation


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

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@...> wrote:
>
> I can answer that one. A year and a half ago, when I was researching
Thomas Stafford, I noticed that he had a personal website, with help
from his son.
> I can guess what you are getting at but it doesn't seem to apply in
the same way as to a historian named DS.


If you mean I was suggesting he was gay, that wasn't it. I was
suggesting he might not be married because, to judge from this book, he
seems to hate and fear women.

Which does not necessarily preclude his being married, or once having
been married, I suppose, but as someone else said, I pity his wie.

Katy

Has anyone other than Hicks seen this picture, and is there any doubt
as to what it depicts?

It's not enough to mention a picture and give an opinion of it, and
then not show it to the reader, or at least say where it can be seen.

It has always seemed to me that there might be information in
Burgundy, and it is interesting that a lot of findings are coming in
from the continent.

It occurs to me that if this picture is genuine, then doesn't it show
that the incident was fairly common knowledge in Burgundy but not for
home consumption? Propaganda at work again.

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@> wrote:
> >
> > I can answer that one. A year and a half ago, when I was
researching
> Thomas Stafford, I noticed that he had a personal website, with
help
> from his son.
> > I can guess what you are getting at but it doesn't seem to apply
in
> the same way as to a historian named DS.
>
>
> If you mean I was suggesting he was gay, that wasn't it. I was
> suggesting he might not be married because, to judge from this
book, he
> seems to hate and fear women.
>
> Which does not necessarily preclude his being married, or once
having
> been married, I suppose, but as someone else said, I pity his wie.
>
> Katy
>
Sorry, I did misinterpret your point - you implied misogyny and I
have no way of investigating that.

It is sad that he has a blind spot, similarly that Starkey is only
following his own logic when he says that Richard must be reasonably
bad because the Tudors are good.