Baldwin

Has anyone read this yet?

Although I have reserved it and read some Amazon reviews, I would like
to see fellow posters' opinions and reports of his interpretation of
events and people.

At last I have been able to borrow it from the library. It explores the
legend in great detail and quotes many Society figures, although it not
necessarily a "friendly" book.

i went surfing to find the price of baldwin's lost prince, and ended up here...

the webpage says "the yorkists" is not published yet.
r3 is being marketed as the "wicked king"...and e5 is the tragic king.
http://www.eruditor.com/books/item/9781847251978.html.en

roslyn

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
At last I have been able to borrow it from the library. It explores the
legend in great detail and quotes many Society figures, although it not
necessarily a "friendly" book.

fayre rose wrote:

>i went surfing to find the price of baldwin's lost prince, and ended up here...
>
> the webpage says "the yorkists" is not published yet.
> r3 is being marketed as the "wicked king"...and e5 is the tragic king.
> http://www.eruditor.com/books/item/9781847251978.html.en
>
> roslyn
>
>

Now that's really odd, considering I have the book.

Gilda

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i went surfing to find the price of baldwin's lost prince, and
ended up here...
>
> the webpage says "the yorkists" is not published yet.
> r3 is being marketed as the "wicked king"...and e5 is the tragic
king.
> http://www.eruditor.com/books/item/9781847251978.html.en
>
> roslyn
>
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> At last I have been able to borrow it from the library.
It explores the
> legend in great detail and quotes many Society figures, although it
is not
> necessarily a "friendly" book.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Amazon prices it at £20 with some cheaper used copies already, but I
WILL buy the paperback.

Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
Paul








Richard Liveth Yet!

And thus, slap-dash, are so many Great Falsehoods perpetuated. That low grade paper says, er, volumes more than author and publisher even intended.

Years ago, my husband ordered me, red-hot off the presses, C. Ross' Riii as my Valentine's gift, along with white roses and Belgian chocolates. Since then, he knows to check Reviews, etc., first.

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:03 AM
Subject: Baldwin


 
Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
Long Live Richard
God Bless Him.
Christine
 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
Subject: Baldwin



 

Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

I haven't read David's new book, and from his article about it in the Ricardian Bulletin, it appears to me that he adopts many of the standpoints that I beg to challenge in my own book. Yes, I adopt a number of standpoints too (I wasn't writing a thesis on mediaeval costume!), but at least I try to set out my arguments to show how I reach them. I think readers need to be credited with enough intelligence to weigh up alternatives for themselves, so if they disagree with one's ideas, they can do so from an informed perspective.

Having said that, a biography is a very difficult thing to write. I wrote a biography of Jeff Beck, which you'd think would be easy enough as he's still alive (and kicking butt) ... however, it's a real problem deciding what to leave in and leave out, what's debatable, what's relevant and what's merely prurient. In the end I decided that my book was about the music, so that was my yardstick. I wonder what yardstick David Baldwin has used? He set himself a really tough task choosing to write a CONCISE biography. For a start, who is his target readership? Does he assume all his readers know enough about the 15th century so he doesn't have to delve into the background? Does he use popular terms or technical terms which need explaining? I am wrestling with just such problems with my latest project. As all writers know, the most difficult thing is writing short. (Except Joan, as I understand it, who learned the secret when writing programming code!)

In essence, therefore, I sympathise with David trying to write short about Richard III. The easiest way to do it is to adopt the traditional approach, because if you dare to be an iconoclast, as I did, you find you need pages of argument and explanation just to substantiate something quite simple and obvious, e.g., why the charge of witchcraft didn't mean the same in the 15th century as it meant in the 16th century. David actually addressed the witchcraft point in his biography of Elizabeth Woodville and consulted me (among others) on sources for it, but I found his treatment in the book was, well, rather superficial, especially as he devoted a whole appendix to it. This is the kind of thing that I imagine Paul found disappointing. What I'd really like to hear from readers is whether David's Richard III makes any concessions at all to the revisionist view - ?

Christine, you're dead right about the chronicles. It's a terrible dilemma when almost all the flesh you have to put on the bare bones of a character has to depend on chroniclers' opinions that can be ignorant, biased or just plain guesswork. I am in the throes of re-assessing the Crowland chronicle and realizing that I'll probably have to adjust some of the assumptions I made about its reliability. Still, it always does one good to revisit sources. Nothing is set in stone, after all.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: C HOLMES
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin



Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
Long Live Richard
God Bless Him.
Christine



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
Subject: Baldwin




Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hello Annette  et al,  In my opinion though not a writer myself it is impossible to do Richard any justice in a short book,  as you say people need to read and make up their own minds.
My mind was made up at the age of 12 years, Richard came to me then and has been with me ever since and he is very welcome.
Some people may think I'm batty but I don't care.
Enjoyed your book.
Do you by any chance know what has happened to Josephine Wilkinson's 2nd volume about Richard, I have read the first The Young King to Be which is quite good.
Richard Forever
God Bless Him.
Christine


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2012, 10:18
Subject: Re: Baldwin



 

I haven't read David's new book, and from his article about it in the Ricardian Bulletin, it appears to me that he adopts many of the standpoints that I beg to challenge in my own book. Yes, I adopt a number of standpoints too (I wasn't writing a thesis on mediaeval costume!), but at least I try to set out my arguments to show how I reach them. I think readers need to be credited with enough intelligence to weigh up alternatives for themselves, so if they disagree with one's ideas, they can do so from an informed perspective.

Having said that, a biography is a very difficult thing to write. I wrote a biography of Jeff Beck, which you'd think would be easy enough as he's still alive (and kicking butt) ... however, it's a real problem deciding what to leave in and leave out, what's debatable, what's relevant and what's merely prurient. In the end I decided that my book was about the music, so that was my yardstick. I wonder what yardstick David Baldwin has used? He set himself a really tough task choosing to write a CONCISE biography. For a start, who is his target readership? Does he assume all his readers know enough about the 15th century so he doesn't have to delve into the background? Does he use popular terms or technical terms which need explaining? I am wrestling with just such problems with my latest project. As all writers know, the most difficult thing is writing short. (Except Joan, as I understand it, who learned the secret when writing programming code!)

In essence, therefore, I sympathise with David trying to write short about Richard III. The easiest way to do it is to adopt the traditional approach, because if you dare to be an iconoclast, as I did, you find you need pages of argument and explanation just to substantiate something quite simple and obvious, e.g., why the charge of witchcraft didn't mean the same in the 15th century as it meant in the 16th century. David actually addressed the witchcraft point in his biography of Elizabeth Woodville and consulted me (among others) on sources for it, but I found his treatment in the book was, well, rather superficial, especially as he devoted a whole appendix to it. This is the kind of thing that I imagine Paul found disappointing. What I'd really like to hear from readers is whether David's Richard III makes any concessions at all to the revisionist view - ?

Christine, you're dead right about the chronicles. It's a terrible dilemma when almost all the flesh you have to put on the bare bones of a character has to depend on chroniclers' opinions that can be ignorant, biased or just plain guesswork. I am in the throes of re-assessing the Crowland chronicle and realizing that I'll probably have to adjust some of the assumptions I made about its reliability. Still, it always does one good to revisit sources. Nothing is set in stone, after all.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: C HOLMES
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin

Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
Long Live Richard
God Bless Him.
Christine


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
Subject: Baldwin

Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes Christine, I haven't got far but can see how he uses Croyland as if a totally reliable eyewitness.
But he more or less lost me at the end of chapter one where he enters Weir territory with after the deaths of father, brother, uncle, and his exile in Burgundy, "had this boy..already decided that when he grew up he would do everything in his power to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to him gain?" Richard at 8 already thinking murky thoughts!
Give me a break!
Paul

On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:10, C HOLMES wrote:

> Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
> On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
> It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
> Long Live Richard
> God Bless Him.
> Christine
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
> Subject: Baldwin
>
>
>
>
>
> Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
> And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
> Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Totally agree Paul re Baldwin's book and Weir, for God's sake an 8 year old boy probably scared to death about what was happening to him, I know I would have been but as for thinking about what he was going to do when he grew up bull----! excuse my language but I get very cross when I hear and read all this rubish about Richard.
I personally will not give Wier or" Wiered" as I have named her space in my home along with one or two others who take it upon themselves to miss out certain people who are relevant to the goings on at the time and where they got their information from.
Richard Liveth Forever.
Christine 

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 10:19
Subject: Re: Baldwin



 

Yes Christine, I haven't got far but can see how he uses Croyland as if a totally reliable eyewitness.
But he more or less lost me at the end of chapter one where he enters Weir territory with after the deaths of father, brother, uncle, and his exile in Burgundy, "had this boy..already decided that when he grew up he would do everything in his power to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to him gain?" Richard at 8 already thinking murky thoughts!
Give me a break!
Paul

On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:10, C HOLMES wrote:

> Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
> On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
> It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
> Long Live Richard
> God Bless Him.
> Christine
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
> Subject: Baldwin
>
>
>
>
>
> Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
> And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
> Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Well met, Christine!

No, you're not batty. Or the lot of us are ; ) and you're in good Co. 

Judy

(I like your term "Wiered") 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin


 
Totally agree Paul re Baldwin's book and Weir, for God's sake an 8 year old boy probably scared to death about what was happening to him, I know I would have been but as for thinking about what he was going to do when he grew up bull----! excuse my language but I get very cross when I hear and read all this rubish about Richard.
I personally will not give Wier or" Wiered" as I have named her space in my home along with one or two others who take it upon themselves to miss out certain people who are relevant to the goings on at the time and where they got their information from.
Richard Liveth Forever.
Christine 

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 10:19
Subject: Re: Baldwin


 

Yes Christine, I haven't got far but can see how he uses Croyland as if a totally reliable eyewitness.
But he more or less lost me at the end of chapter one where he enters Weir territory with after the deaths of father, brother, uncle, and his exile in Burgundy, "had this boy..already decided that when he grew up he would do everything in his power to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to him gain?" Richard at 8 already thinking murky thoughts!
Give me a break!
Paul

On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:10, C HOLMES wrote:

> Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
> On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
> It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
> Long Live Richard
> God Bless Him.
> Christine
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
> Subject: Baldwin
>
>
>
>
>
> Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
> And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
> Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I was musing on the Chronicle and how Baldwin quotes it as being the opinion of all. My thoughts are that a few years earlier my ancestor Robert Bale was writing it in the most overly biased towards the Yorkists way imaginable, yet nobody questions him.
The later entry about Richard smacks to me of someone who had had a cushy number in the Edwardian regime, not come up to muster for Richard and therefore had an axe to grind. "If he'd left it the way it was I'd still have my nice job and good living, whereas now! Serves him right!"

Looks as if Baldwin is one of those who cherry pick the bits that match their prejudices and pre-conceived ideas!
Paul



On 29 Mar 2012, at 11:16, C HOLMES wrote:

> Totally agree Paul re Baldwin's book and Weir, for God's sake an 8 year old boy probably scared to death about what was happening to him, I know I would have been but as for thinking about what he was going to do when he grew up bull----! excuse my language but I get very cross when I hear and read all this rubish about Richard.
> I personally will not give Wier or" Wiered" as I have named her space in my home along with one or two others who take it upon themselves to miss out certain people who are relevant to the goings on at the time and where they got their information from.
> Richard Liveth Forever.
> Christine
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 10:19
> Subject: Re: Baldwin
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes Christine, I haven't got far but can see how he uses Croyland as if a totally reliable eyewitness.
> But he more or less lost me at the end of chapter one where he enters Weir territory with after the deaths of father, brother, uncle, and his exile in Burgundy, "had this boy..already decided that when he grew up he would do everything in his power to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to him gain?" Richard at 8 already thinking murky thoughts!
> Give me a break!
> Paul
>
> On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:10, C HOLMES wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
>> On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
>> It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
>> Long Live Richard
>> God Bless Him.
>> Christine
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
>> Subject: Baldwin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
>> And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
>> Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
>> Paul
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Great observations, Paul. One can picture that disaffected "bureaucrat," scribbling away. A fly lands on his nose. Whisk. Then, later, Splat - got the little devil, plus soiled a Reputation, all in the same instant.

(And we ought to award Purple Hearts to you et al. with the fortitude to wade through some of these alleged "histories" and "biographies," that others among us needn't suffer!)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Baldwin


 
I was musing on the Chronicle and how Baldwin quotes it as being the opinion of all. My thoughts are that a few years earlier my ancestor Robert Bale was writing it in the most overly biased towards the Yorkists way imaginable, yet nobody questions him.
The later entry about Richard smacks to me of someone who had had a cushy number in the Edwardian regime, not come up to muster for Richard and therefore had an axe to grind. "If he'd left it the way it was I'd still have my nice job and good living, whereas now! Serves him right!"

Looks as if Baldwin is one of those who cherry pick the bits that match their prejudices and pre-conceived ideas!
Paul

On 29 Mar 2012, at 11:16, C HOLMES wrote:

> Totally agree Paul re Baldwin's book and Weir, for God's sake an 8 year old boy probably scared to death about what was happening to him, I know I would have been but as for thinking about what he was going to do when he grew up bull----! excuse my language but I get very cross when I hear and read all this rubish about Richard.
> I personally will not give Wier or" Wiered" as I have named her space in my home along with one or two others who take it upon themselves to miss out certain people who are relevant to the goings on at the time and where they got their information from.
> Richard Liveth Forever.
> Christine
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 10:19
> Subject: Re: Baldwin
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes Christine, I haven't got far but can see how he uses Croyland as if a totally reliable eyewitness.
> But he more or less lost me at the end of chapter one where he enters Weir territory with after the deaths of father, brother, uncle, and his exile in Burgundy, "had this boy..already decided that when he grew up he would do everything in his power to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to him gain?" Richard at 8 already thinking murky thoughts!
> Give me a break!
> Paul
>
> On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:10, C HOLMES wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
>> On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
>> It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
>> Long Live Richard
>> God Bless Him.
>> Christine
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
>> Subject: Baldwin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
>> And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
>> Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
>> Paul
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Christine - No idea what's happened to Wilkinson's part 2. Perhaps the publishers can say?
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: C HOLMES
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin



Hello Annette et al, In my opinion though not a writer myself it is impossible to do Richard any justice in a short book, as you say people need to read and make up their own minds.
My mind was made up at the age of 12 years, Richard came to me then and has been with me ever since and he is very welcome.
Some people may think I'm batty but I don't care.
Enjoyed your book.
Do you by any chance know what has happened to Josephine Wilkinson's 2nd volume about Richard, I have read the first The Young King to Be which is quite good.
Richard Forever
God Bless Him.
Christine


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2012, 10:18
Subject: Re: Baldwin




I haven't read David's new book, and from his article about it in the Ricardian Bulletin, it appears to me that he adopts many of the standpoints that I beg to challenge in my own book. Yes, I adopt a number of standpoints too (I wasn't writing a thesis on mediaeval costume!), but at least I try to set out my arguments to show how I reach them. I think readers need to be credited with enough intelligence to weigh up alternatives for themselves, so if they disagree with one's ideas, they can do so from an informed perspective.

Having said that, a biography is a very difficult thing to write. I wrote a biography of Jeff Beck, which you'd think would be easy enough as he's still alive (and kicking butt) ... however, it's a real problem deciding what to leave in and leave out, what's debatable, what's relevant and what's merely prurient. In the end I decided that my book was about the music, so that was my yardstick. I wonder what yardstick David Baldwin has used? He set himself a really tough task choosing to write a CONCISE biography. For a start, who is his target readership? Does he assume all his readers know enough about the 15th century so he doesn't have to delve into the background? Does he use popular terms or technical terms which need explaining? I am wrestling with just such problems with my latest project. As all writers know, the most difficult thing is writing short. (Except Joan, as I understand it, who learned the secret when writing programming code!)

In essence, therefore, I sympathise with David trying to write short about Richard III. The easiest way to do it is to adopt the traditional approach, because if you dare to be an iconoclast, as I did, you find you need pages of argument and explanation just to substantiate something quite simple and obvious, e.g., why the charge of witchcraft didn't mean the same in the 15th century as it meant in the 16th century. David actually addressed the witchcraft point in his biography of Elizabeth Woodville and consulted me (among others) on sources for it, but I found his treatment in the book was, well, rather superficial, especially as he devoted a whole appendix to it. This is the kind of thing that I imagine Paul found disappointing. What I'd really like to hear from readers is whether David's Richard III makes any concessions at all to the revisionist view - ?

Christine, you're dead right about the chronicles. It's a terrible dilemma when almost all the flesh you have to put on the bare bones of a character has to depend on chroniclers' opinions that can be ignorant, biased or just plain guesswork. I am in the throes of re-assessing the Crowland chronicle and realizing that I'll probably have to adjust some of the assumptions I made about its reliability. Still, it always does one good to revisit sources. Nothing is set in stone, after all.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: C HOLMES
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin

Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
Long Live Richard
God Bless Him.
Christine

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
Subject: Baldwin

Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

While I agree that chronicles are biased based on the chroniclers'
agenda, those documents are as close to contemporary accounts of what
happened that we can get. The trick is to find more than one chronicle
and then see what matches up. With Richard III, there doesn't seem to be
sufficient extant documentation (including that Croyland was partially
destroyed in a fire) to run that sort of filter. What's left is to do
what Annette Carson has done. Kudos to you Annette for not cherry
picking to for using logic, science, and observation of what is known to
have happened to speculate what might have been the motivations and
actions.

Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Great observations, Paul. One can picture that disaffected
"bureaucrat," scribbling away. A fly lands on his nose. Whisk. Then,
later, Splat - got the little devil, plus soiled a Reputation, all in
the same instant.
>
> (And we ought to award Purple Hearts to you et al. with the fortitude
to wade through some of these alleged "histories" and "biographies,"
that others among us needn't suffer!)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Baldwin
>
>
> Â
> I was musing on the Chronicle and how Baldwin quotes it as being the
opinion of all. My thoughts are that a few years earlier my ancestor
Robert Bale was writing it in the most overly biased towards the
Yorkists way imaginable, yet nobody questions him.
> The later entry about Richard smacks to me of someone who had had a
cushy number in the Edwardian regime, not come up to muster for Richard
and therefore had an axe to grind. "If he'd left it the way it was I'd
still have my nice job and good living, whereas now! Serves him right!"
>
> Looks as if Baldwin is one of those who cherry pick the bits that
match their prejudices and pre-conceived ideas!
> Paul
>
> On 29 Mar 2012, at 11:16, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> > Totally agree Paul re Baldwin's book and Weir, for God's sake an 8
year old boy probably scared to death about what was happening to him, I
know I would have been but as for thinking about what he was going to do
when he grew up bull----! excuse my language but I get very cross when I
hear and read all this rubish about Richard.
> > I personally will not give Wier or" Wiered" as I have named her
space in my home along with one or two others who take it upon
themselves to miss out certain people who are relevant to the goings on
at the time and where they got their information from.
> > Richard Liveth Forever.
> > Christine
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 10:19
> > Subject: Re: Baldwin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes Christine, I haven't got far but can see how he uses Croyland as
if a totally reliable eyewitness.
> > But he more or less lost me at the end of chapter one where he
enters Weir territory with after the deaths of father, brother, uncle,
and his exile in Burgundy, "had this boy..already decided that when he
grew up he would do everything in his power to ensure that nothing like
this would ever happen to him gain?" Richard at 8 already thinking murky
thoughts!
> > Give me a break!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:10, C HOLMES wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too
much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory
whatever that is.
> >> On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how
does he know, was he there.
> >> It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were
the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the
times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
> >> Long Live Richard
> >> God Bless Him.
> >> Christine
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> >> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
> >> Subject: Baldwin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I
didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a
book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of
novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC,
so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
> >> And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a
couple of years!
> >> Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with
confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting
it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>

Seconding those kudos, Joan and Annette.

Another "fun" thing about Crowland/Croyland is how you can flip it around. Imagine everything through a refractive lens, as Paul suggested.

The finest historians share with great scientists the ability to rise above or stand outside their material and "play" (experiment) with it. At least, a Baldwin reopens a topic and gives fresh opportunities to dispute tired, old arguments. And there are always possibilities for heretofore unexamined (or mis-attributed) evidence to show up. Like the fellow who seems to have found an unknown Da Vinci (see PBS, Nova). After all this time, who'd have thunk it?

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin


 
While I agree that chronicles are biased based on the chroniclers'
agenda, those documents are as close to contemporary accounts of what
happened that we can get. The trick is to find more than one chronicle
and then see what matches up. With Richard III, there doesn't seem to be
sufficient extant documentation (including that Croyland was partially
destroyed in a fire) to run that sort of filter. What's left is to do
what Annette Carson has done. Kudos to you Annette for not cherry
picking to for using logic, science, and observation of what is known to
have happened to speculate what might have been the motivations and
actions.

Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>

--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Great observations, Paul. One can picture that disaffected
"bureaucrat," scribbling away. A fly lands on his nose. Whisk. Then,
later, Splat - got the little devil, plus soiled a Reputation, all in
the same instant.
>
> (And we ought to award Purple Hearts to you et al. with the fortitude
to wade through some of these alleged "histories" and "biographies,"
that others among us needn't suffer!)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Baldwin
>
>
> Â
> I was musing on the Chronicle and how Baldwin quotes it as being the
opinion of all. My thoughts are that a few years earlier my ancestor
Robert Bale was writing it in the most overly biased towards the
Yorkists way imaginable, yet nobody questions him.
> The later entry about Richard smacks to me of someone who had had a
cushy number in the Edwardian regime, not come up to muster for Richard
and therefore had an axe to grind. "If he'd left it the way it was I'd
still have my nice job and good living, whereas now! Serves him right!"
>
> Looks as if Baldwin is one of those who cherry pick the bits that
match their prejudices and pre-conceived ideas!
> Paul
>
> On 29 Mar 2012, at 11:16, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> > Totally agree Paul re Baldwin's book and Weir, for God's sake an 8
year old boy probably scared to death about what was happening to him, I
know I would have been but as for thinking about what he was going to do
when he grew up bull----! excuse my language but I get very cross when I
hear and read all this rubish about Richard.
> > I personally will not give Wier or" Wiered" as I have named her
space in my home along with one or two others who take it upon
themselves to miss out certain people who are relevant to the goings on
at the time and where they got their information from.
> > Richard Liveth Forever.
> > Christine
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 10:19
> > Subject: Re: Baldwin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes Christine, I haven't got far but can see how he uses Croyland as
if a totally reliable eyewitness.
> > But he more or less lost me at the end of chapter one where he
enters Weir territory with after the deaths of father, brother, uncle,
and his exile in Burgundy, "had this boy..already decided that when he
grew up he would do everything in his power to ensure that nothing like
this would ever happen to him gain?" Richard at 8 already thinking murky
thoughts!
> > Give me a break!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:10, C HOLMES wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too
much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory
whatever that is.
> >> On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how
does he know, was he there.
> >> It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were
the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the
times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
> >> Long Live Richard
> >> God Bless Him.
> >> Christine
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> >> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
> >> Subject: Baldwin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I
didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a
book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of
novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC,
so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
> >> And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a
couple of years!
> >> Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with
confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting
it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>

I didn't like part 1 in the least so it doesn't bother me if part 2 never arrives!
Maybe sales were bad so they decided not to proceed.
Paul


On 30 Mar 2012, at 13:20, Annette Carson wrote:

> Christine - No idea what's happened to Wilkinson's part 2. Perhaps the publishers can say?
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C HOLMES
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Baldwin
>
>
>
> Hello Annette et al, In my opinion though not a writer myself it is impossible to do Richard any justice in a short book, as you say people need to read and make up their own minds.
> My mind was made up at the age of 12 years, Richard came to me then and has been with me ever since and he is very welcome.
> Some people may think I'm batty but I don't care.
> Enjoyed your book.
> Do you by any chance know what has happened to Josephine Wilkinson's 2nd volume about Richard, I have read the first The Young King to Be which is quite good.
> Richard Forever
> God Bless Him.
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2012, 10:18
> Subject: Re: Baldwin
>
>
>
>
> I haven't read David's new book, and from his article about it in the Ricardian Bulletin, it appears to me that he adopts many of the standpoints that I beg to challenge in my own book. Yes, I adopt a number of standpoints too (I wasn't writing a thesis on mediaeval costume!), but at least I try to set out my arguments to show how I reach them. I think readers need to be credited with enough intelligence to weigh up alternatives for themselves, so if they disagree with one's ideas, they can do so from an informed perspective.
>
> Having said that, a biography is a very difficult thing to write. I wrote a biography of Jeff Beck, which you'd think would be easy enough as he's still alive (and kicking butt) ... however, it's a real problem deciding what to leave in and leave out, what's debatable, what's relevant and what's merely prurient. In the end I decided that my book was about the music, so that was my yardstick. I wonder what yardstick David Baldwin has used? He set himself a really tough task choosing to write a CONCISE biography. For a start, who is his target readership? Does he assume all his readers know enough about the 15th century so he doesn't have to delve into the background? Does he use popular terms or technical terms which need explaining? I am wrestling with just such problems with my latest project. As all writers know, the most difficult thing is writing short. (Except Joan, as I understand it, who learned the secret when writing programming code!)
>
> In essence, therefore, I sympathise with David trying to write short about Richard III. The easiest way to do it is to adopt the traditional approach, because if you dare to be an iconoclast, as I did, you find you need pages of argument and explanation just to substantiate something quite simple and obvious, e.g., why the charge of witchcraft didn't mean the same in the 15th century as it meant in the 16th century. David actually addressed the witchcraft point in his biography of Elizabeth Woodville and consulted me (among others) on sources for it, but I found his treatment in the book was, well, rather superficial, especially as he devoted a whole appendix to it. This is the kind of thing that I imagine Paul found disappointing. What I'd really like to hear from readers is whether David's Richard III makes any concessions at all to the revisionist view - ?
>
> Christine, you're dead right about the chronicles. It's a terrible dilemma when almost all the flesh you have to put on the bare bones of a character has to depend on chroniclers' opinions that can be ignorant, biased or just plain guesswork. I am in the throes of re-assessing the Crowland chronicle and realizing that I'll probably have to adjust some of the assumptions I made about its reliability. Still, it always does one good to revisit sources. Nothing is set in stone, after all.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C HOLMES
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Baldwin
>
> Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory whatever that is.
> On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how does he know, was he there.
> It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
> Long Live Richard
> God Bless Him.
> Christine
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
> Subject: Baldwin
>
> Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC, so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
> And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a couple of years!
> Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

What I think is vital is for the writer to make his or her arguments absolutely clear. A writer's views (and that includes my views) may be mistaken, or coloured by prior assumptions, or deduced from sources which themselves may be faulty. But that matters little as long as the reader is informed of the arguments that lead to those views. This enables the reader to discriminate and pursue the truth for him/herself. For example, both Mike Jones and Peter Hancock have espoused quite far-out theories and each has written an entire book based on his theory, but at least they have explained their arguments and how they reached them. What I find difficult to swallow is when writers like Alison Weir speak of so-called 'evidence' that proves their case, when what they regard as 'evidence' is actually rumour and speculation. Similarly, 'what Richard thought' (like 'what Richard dreamed') is such a flaky concept that it undermines credibility unless backed up by something a bit stronger than merely the author's opinion.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Baldwin



While I agree that chronicles are biased based on the chroniclers'
agenda, those documents are as close to contemporary accounts of what
happened that we can get. The trick is to find more than one chronicle
and then see what matches up. With Richard III, there doesn't seem to be
sufficient extant documentation (including that Croyland was partially
destroyed in a fire) to run that sort of filter. What's left is to do
what Annette Carson has done. Kudos to you Annette for not cherry
picking to for using logic, science, and observation of what is known to
have happened to speculate what might have been the motivations and
actions.

Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>

--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Great observations, Paul. One can picture that disaffected
"bureaucrat," scribbling away. A fly lands on his nose. Whisk. Then,
later, Splat - got the little devil, plus soiled a Reputation, all in
the same instant.
>
> (And we ought to award Purple Hearts to you et al. with the fortitude
to wade through some of these alleged "histories" and "biographies,"
that others among us needn't suffer!)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Baldwin
>
>
> Â
> I was musing on the Chronicle and how Baldwin quotes it as being the
opinion of all. My thoughts are that a few years earlier my ancestor
Robert Bale was writing it in the most overly biased towards the
Yorkists way imaginable, yet nobody questions him.
> The later entry about Richard smacks to me of someone who had had a
cushy number in the Edwardian regime, not come up to muster for Richard
and therefore had an axe to grind. "If he'd left it the way it was I'd
still have my nice job and good living, whereas now! Serves him right!"
>
> Looks as if Baldwin is one of those who cherry pick the bits that
match their prejudices and pre-conceived ideas!
> Paul
>
> On 29 Mar 2012, at 11:16, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> > Totally agree Paul re Baldwin's book and Weir, for God's sake an 8
year old boy probably scared to death about what was happening to him, I
know I would have been but as for thinking about what he was going to do
when he grew up bull----! excuse my language but I get very cross when I
hear and read all this rubish about Richard.
> > I personally will not give Wier or" Wiered" as I have named her
space in my home along with one or two others who take it upon
themselves to miss out certain people who are relevant to the goings on
at the time and where they got their information from.
> > Richard Liveth Forever.
> > Christine
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 10:19
> > Subject: Re: Baldwin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes Christine, I haven't got far but can see how he uses Croyland as
if a totally reliable eyewitness.
> > But he more or less lost me at the end of chapter one where he
enters Weir territory with after the deaths of father, brother, uncle,
and his exile in Burgundy, "had this boy..already decided that when he
grew up he would do everything in his power to ensure that nothing like
this would ever happen to him gain?" Richard at 8 already thinking murky
thoughts!
> > Give me a break!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:10, C HOLMES wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Paul and all, Have read this book and do not like it at all too
much Croyland and misses certain people out to as usual fit his theory
whatever that is.
> >> On the front of the book it states the truth about Richard 111, how
does he know, was he there.
> >> It anoys me when historians use these chronicles as if they were
the written truths, do they not realise that they were the media of the
times just as today we have media with their own agendas.
> >> Long Live Richard
> >> God Bless Him.
> >> Christine
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> >> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 17:03
> >> Subject: Baldwin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Just took delivery of David Baldwin's new biography of Richard. I
didn't like his Elizabeth Woodville at all, and he has just published a
book in tandem with Philippa Gregory to co-incide with her series of
novels that are unfortunately [imo] about to be dramatised on the BBC,
so all in all I am not looking forward to reading it.
> >> And the paper used is of such low quality that it will yellow in a
couple of years!
> >> Will report back once read, but the intro does not fill me with
confidence as he claims the Great Chronicle sums Richard up best quoting
it starting "and thus ended this man with dishonour...."
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>