Hear hear! Alas, I suspect that in some cases (and no swipes intended at anyone here - everyone has their own reasons for everything they do), it's not about the supposed object of the unfairness - it's about the person alleging the unfairness. Far from being an altruistic expression of support for someone misunderstood and maltreated, it's a way for the person creating the stink to show everyone how groovy they are. At that level, it's a highly selfish bit of self aggrandisement, made easier where the object of one's attention is long dead and beyond any sort of genuine, practical help that one might make available to the living.

Regards,

AR

I appreciate that you don't much like me Nordmann but may I please claim the title of , "Barbarian" from Catigern please? It would be a step up for me.
Incidentally, I can't see why I am in the position of endlessly siting Richard III's "good points", so tedious, obvious and endlessly discussed by true historians.

I see no one defends the right of the bastard Elizabeth I to be queen. WHY? Too demanding and complex? Surely not? That magic, pragmatic and ridiculous stance; is Simon Schama the only true Historian left standing? Learned, logical and lamentably lost from this debate.
Reiteration is tiring and dull. My care-worn father told me to, "look it up", endlessly when doing Latin homework, why can't you Arwhe(n), bad Welsh.
when lost? Your lack of historical knowledge isn't my problem.

I am becoming so weary with this, shall we all use "Occam's Broom" and simply end all historical knowledge into Richard III? Let us allow those who follow the Tudor play-write Shakespeare to win. It would end the facts, and problems of all evidence. Hurrah! Another "problem" solved! Everyone can stop thinking now. Job done.

It's not a good idea to be proud of being "thick".

Minette Minor wrote:

I appreciate that you don't much like me Nordmann but may I please claim the title of , "Barbarian" from Catigern please? It would be a step up for me.

As a follower of the Jones and Ereira line of reasoning I am afraid that this is not possible, Minnie. "Barbarian" is a title to be earned, not claimed.

Why on earth do you think I don't much like you? Silly billy!

Quote :

Reiteration is tiring and dull. My care-worn father told me to, "look it up", endlessly when doing Latin homework, why can't you Arwhe(n), bad Welsh.
when lost? Your lack of historical knowledge isn't my problem.

Bad Welsh, perhaps, but pefectly valid Old Cumbric. Actually, it probably isn't even that, but I've used the moniker for years now so I'm sort of stuck with it.

I think you seriously misunderstand. What I am doing is having a discussion about an area which is outside my specialism. If we all had to bone up on every topic before asking questions, there'd be very few threads that got beyond one post. And as might have become obvious, my interest in this question is less about whether RIII dunnit and much more about why people such as yourself seem so keen to sanctify him. I have raised a number of issues about kingship and myth-making, but you have chosen not to engage with any of them. That's fine. Instead, you fall back on the impregnable last line of defence - "if you knew what I know, you'd agree with me". Of course, I could never know what you know, because what you "know" (or, to put it more accurately, what you think you know) is in part at least shaped by your own preconceptions and prejudices, just as it is for all of us.

And, of course, if I did follow your Dad's advice and look it up, then unless I came back agreeing with you, it would still not be good enough. You would simply tell me (as you repeatedly tell others) that whichever historians I had consulted were wrong and/or were not proper historians and/or were part of some huge Tudor conspiracy which is alive and well in the 21st century. Attacking the people rather than the arguments gets us no further.

Quote :

Let us allow those who follow the Tudor play-write Shakespeare to win. It would end the facts, and problems of all evidence. Hurrah! Another "problem" solved! Everyone can stop thinking now.

"Facts", "evidence". You will no doubt (wrongly) accuse me again of just having got a law degree, but the evidential approach is notably lacking in your posts. I don't say you don't actually have it, but the vitriol which you bring down on the Tudors at every opportunity is not suggestive of an objective and coldly rational approach to the evidence.

Neither is it likely to change. So, it's stumps for me on this debate.

Regards,

AR

:(Hello! At last! What's happening here? The format has changed. Oh well will loose this I suppose but thankyou Nordmann! Can't see what you've written but I will try to earn the name of barbarian! I like you very much. Always thought you thought of me as a twit. But moving on....
Or should I test this first? Why the change I wonder?

Arwhen,
I really don't understand you. You seem to want to know why RIII matters but don't listen. So here's a breakdown. 1) History matters. Mis-use of History is how Stalin, Mao, Hitler, name a dictator of your choice, gained power, the disemmination of mis-infromation works. Historians are usually the first to go after any revolution. 2) This is because Historians remember facts. History is a fact based subject. Conjecture, suggestions and so on are just that. 3) I read History AND Politics at Warwick many, many years ago, they are inseperabtle I believe, so I do know a bit about how government in the UK works, with Parliament. Historically and politically RIII had a better claim than ED V or Henry VII as seen by Parliament and everyone else! 4) It was not until the late c16th that it was "generally" believed that RIII did NOT have a better claim than Henry VII. 5) None of the Tudors had a true claim to rule. Not of Royal bood and they did NOT FIGHT in battle.    
5) The Tudors held on to power by the use of terror, torture and intimididation.
6) I don't believe RIII wanted to be king. His older, blustering brother Edward IV put him in a situation where he had no choice, for the peace of the Realm, the common wealde etc..

7) The Death/murder/disappearance of the Princes in the Tower is stupid, lazy thinking, used by idiots. IF you knew anything about history you would see why. RIII had no reason to kill them. You think like a Tudor, totally different to the Plantagenet extended family. The Ps didn't kill women or children, that was a Tudor need and later urge! WATCH that terrible prog by T Penn again, he lets slip that Suffolk was poking around in Flanders (reasons unknown but uber secret) well  into HVII's reign. Why? The question not asked....  
8)Why did RIII stamp out immediately, rumours he was planning to marry E of York (negotioations for him to marry Joanna of Portugal and E of York to wed Manuel of Beja were afoot) but NOT that he had MURDERED the PRINCES? 9) WHY didn't Henry VII accuse RIII of murdering the Princes in the Tower? Avoiding the Lambert Simnell and Perkin Warbeck "up-risings"? Of course it could go on....

As for right and wrong...Der! Philosophy or Theology now? Well dad was a clergyman, (read Greats, Theology and a Postgrad at Oxford) my maternal and paternal grandfathers were priests too, as were/are my step uncle, aunt and grandfather (Cambridge I'm afraid) etc., etc.,. Right and wrong mattered a lot to us, esp.to me when my brother, sister, dad and then mum died when I was so young. It made me think a lot. History is about dead people as a rule, it doesn't mean that they don't matter or never were. I still have survivors guilt, they were better and more intelligent than I am, but my daughters are doing very happily, hurrah! Knowing death young makes one see life (and death) for what it is, a stage we all go through. I'm only here for a short time and think Richard Armitage is...gorgeous!!!!! I'm also considering marrying for money and a Grade Two Listed building. I could make him happy. Am I wicked?      

But most of all, Richard III's name will never be cleared whilest old baldy is still around which will be forever and yes, reputations DO matter for the dead! I don't "sanctify" Richard III. I'm considered really, really odd for doing this. I want fair play and oddly JUSTICE for the man. and he was a man who for the past 500 years has been used as a word to conjure up evil!
How would you like it Arwe(n)? "Oh I remember that one, Arwe Rheged! Makes my blood run cold! A bye word for evil and so nasty and stupid too! Bunch-backed, warty toad! She knew nothing about anything! Stay clear of her funeral!" Happy with that are you Arwhen? RIP. Cope with that for over 500 years! Then tell me it's, "a just analysis. Prove the opposite". I'm only being "fair".  
Cheers, Minette!

The White Queen, by Philippa Gregotty, coming soon.
As someone who knew Grafton Manor and Grafton well, may I make some predicitions about the afore mentioned television series....
No mention will be made of, "the Hermitage across the Northampton Road". This is where it was located in the early 1960s and had Woodville tiles. With its three fishponds it's a place for clerics. To get there, secretly, one would have to march three miles from the Manor House, with horses, through the village to take "secret" food, blankets, wine etc., so that they could "not secretly" meet. The staff and villagers would hear all.
Whittlebury Forrest, still there today, as is Salsey, has never surrounded Grafton Manor. Due to the number of large oak trees it's mentioned in the Doomsday Book. "The Hermitage" is/was NOT present in Whittlebury Forrest.
Nobody will say, "let's have a thrilling day out at the village of Stony Stratford. It is always so much more accomodating than Northampton town"
No one will say, "my God Jacquetta! You and Richard are supposed to be the most handsome people in England! What went wrong"?
Jacquetta, with the gift of prophecy, will never say, "as the dowager duchess of Bedford, accused of witchcraft and the descendent of a mermaid from land-locked Luxumburg, I know there's no river here now but during the c19th the Grand Union Canal will branch out over there. So shall we make a tributary of the Ouse or Nene up"?  
No one will say, "I feel like a change! Let's go to Church at Stoke Bruerne, it's so pretty there and then we can go and shop in Towcester"!
I shall go away now but it's tough knowing that a magical place you grew up in, if my dad had lived 500 years earlier he well have married Liz Woodville and Edward Iv, (he'd have asked questions I think!) is about to be trashed by a fim crew and a woman out to make money. There was a village there once, the locals can't afford it any more. So terribly sad.

Minette, My Sweet, I wondered whether you'd seen the article on p29 of the current 'Private Eye', about police reports from the 1970s being revisited? Apparently, Trevor Huddleston was a child molester, there being at least four recorded complaints about him fondling young boys that the police were investigating when it all got too much for him and he fled Stepney for Mauritius.

Minette Minor wrote:

I'm also considering marrying for money and a Grade Two Listed building. I could make him happy. Am I wicked?

Don't throw yourself away, Minette. Marry for money and a Grade One listed building.

-------

https://reshistorica.forumotion.com/viewtopic.forum?t=591

Hello! Haven't been here for some time and I'm so impressed by the Forum! I've read some of the posts and I do sound like a lunatic sometimes if not often and I do apologize I simply felt rather frustrated! Ashamed to say that many people were far more civil to me than I was to them.  Times change...It's so nice to see so many "regulars" still here, it really is. A warm glow. 

Just a thought but don't you think it would be interesting to discuss what actually did happen to the Princes? We still really don't know. We don't even know how or when they died. I don't believe that many seriously believe that the bones in the Wren urn are those of the Princes. Odds are that they are not.
An interesting point is that when DNA was needed to identify Richard, John Ashdown Hill went to Canada to a distant off shoot of the Plantagenets, no minor Royals or the handy duke of Gloucester, "chairman" of the Richard III Society who surely could have been asked, was asked.
Does this mean that it was a tacit acceptance that Elizabeth of York, was not a Plantagenet and that her father, Edward IV, was the son of the Archer of Rouen and not Richard duke of York? We know where all the bodies are buried and Richard has been endlessly fiddled with, so why not use one of them discreetly? Or do we accept that the Royal Family have no Plantagenet blood? Don't you think it's interesting? Three years since I've been here, very strange but it's really nice to be back.
Happy cheers! Minette.

Happy cheers indeed, Minette, you've made my day by coming back even if I can't add anything sensible at this minute.
Welcome home.

ferval wrote:

Happy cheers indeed, Minette, you've made my day by coming back even if I can't add anything sensible at this minute.
Welcome home.

I join Ferval, Minette.

And I hope that you are still your "combatif" yourself. And I mean in your "Baroque" style...

As ever kind regards from your friend Paul.

PS:about Baroque:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque


PPS: (I learned that from Temperance)
To be honest and to not have misunderstandings, with your "Baroque" style, I mean as mentioned in the wiki:
"artistic style that used exaggerated motion and clear, easily interpreted detail to produce drama, tension, exuberance, and grandeur in sculpture, painting, architecture, literature, dance, theater, and music."
And in that sentence "exuberance" stick to my memory...and it is meant as a positive quality...as my Colllins paperback English dictionary Complete New Edition (I see now for the first time that there is no printing year in it (are they sure it will last forever ?)) says for "exuberance": full of vigour and high sprits...

Welcome back, Minette.  There hasn't been anything about the princes in the tower for a heck of a long time.  I did mention on another thread some while ago that I'd read that "The White Princess"* was being adapted for TV, though the Beeb aren't having anything to do with it. Michelle Fairley and Essie Davies (who in my opinion are good actresses) will be in it but I guess at the end of the day even talented thespians are jobbing players and have to take the work that is available.

* I'm mentioning that because when it airs people may post about the princes and Richard III again.

Sorry if you have been unwell and hope you now feel better  - I've had a bit of a health problem myself of late (don't want to bore everybody else with it as I have mentioned it on other threads) but now I know what it is I should be able to manage it.  Anyway, glad to see you posting again - I sometimes "lurk" myself and don't always post.

Hi Minette - it's lovely to hear from you again.

The Richard thread got so big that the site's database refused to handle it any more so I had to split it up (hence the weird name). If you're interested in all the gabble we generated around the discovery of the old nun in the car park I think you'll find it in the more recent thread which can be found here.

The Princes in the Tower, Round Two

How very sweet and kind of you, Ferval, Paul (I like Baroque!  ) Lady in Retirement (very interesting!) and patient Nordmann. I didn't expect a greeting, it's really touching. Actually and luckily I haven't been ill just moved from Wales to East London, a culture shock! A bus and a train and I can wander around ... so many places. And do! I was told I frightened a Beef Eater once, he said, "I've only been here eight weeks!" Coward. Writing and tutoring and I now hate the Nazis in a new way! Thank you so much again and I shall return! Lots to discuss....

Minette Minor wrote:

An interesting point is that when DNA was needed to identify Richard, John Ashdown Hill went to Canada to a distant off shoot of the Plantagenets, no minor Royals or the handy duke of Gloucester, "chairman" of the Richard III Society who surely could have been asked, was asked.
Does this mean that it was a tacit acceptance that Elizabeth of York, was not a Plantagenet and that her father, Edward IV, was the son of the Archer of Rouen and not Richard duke of York?

As I understand it the DNA analysis was based on matching of the mitochondrial DNA which is passed unchanged only down the direct maternal line. Richard would have inherited a share of his mother's mitochondrial DNA as would Anne of York, Richard's elder sister. They were able to trace via genealogical records a female, mother-to-daughter, line from Anne to a Mrs Ibsen of Canada. Unfortunately she died in 2008 but her son, being only one generation removed from his mother, despite being male fortunately carried his mother's mitochondrial DNA. The current Duke of Gloucester wouldn't do because of his complex ancestral line (and hence his title) which is inherited sometimes down the male line, sometimes down the female, and sometimes via cousins etc.

I believe they did also look at the DNA profile based on the paternal line but the match was not particularly good. The trouble with father-to-son lines is the increased risk of misattributed paternity somewhere along the line. In short it is usually fairly clear cut who a child's biological mother is, but it's far less certain who the actual biological father might be. I've seen studies comparing paternal DNA against accepted genealogies (going back to early 19th century (based on civil registration and what families themselves believed) that showed paternity was wrongly attributed in something like 5% to 10% of cases, ie the accepted father was not actually the biological father (I can't recall the exact percentage but it was far from insignificant). Similarly Richard's DNA would not say anything about whether Elizabeth of York's father was actually the son of the Archer of Rouen rather than Richard of York, as it was matched against his sister's maternal DNA (and carried by Mrs Ibsen) and this is independent of the paternal DNA, whoever was the actual father, although again there is a relatively high risk of erroneous paternity somewhere along the line.

Minette wrote:

I'm also considering marrying for money and a Grade Two Listed building. I could make him happy. Am I wicked?

Did you marry your Grade II Listed building, Minette? Certainly a better bet than forming an alliance with a cloakroom and a mere parcel. Hope you are happy whatever you decided to do, and that you do not disappear again.

Well, I'm wed to a B-listed building (the Scottish equivalent to a Grade 2) and the little drip in the kitchen is a big improvement on some of the big drips I've had relationships with.

Temperance wrote:

Did you marry your Grade II Listed building, Minette? Certainly a better bet than forming an alliance with a cloakroom and a mere parcel.

... and at Victoria Station too!

But in all earnest listed buildings are a bit difficult to live with ... always something ailing them. You'd be better off with something with a few less years under the eaves, although a new build might be a bit too racy and cheaply appointed. They're not particularly romantic but frankly there's not much wrong with something unpretensious and homely, raised post-war on solid foundations, and now just settling into its prime. Like me.

Good Lord, MM. Are you proposing to Minette?

Oh errr ... now I'm in a pickle ... I didn't mean that ... but I don't want to offend ...

Anyway I'm already happily wedded to a chilly and crumbling 19th century pile with loose tiles, crumbling soffits, no double glazing and bats in the attic.

I'd forgotten how funny and learned you all are. Interesting what you said about the mitochondrial DNA and I wonder if anyone one day might see how the Woodville DNA was absorbed into into so many noble families...or the Beaufort come to that. it was just an idle thought. 
As for marrying into a station and forming an alliance with a Grade 2 Listed Building, nah.Sorry SST, no "dear reader, I married him"I'm not very sensational unlike my diary! And I quite understand your problems MM, although I've been spared crumbling soffits and bats, praise the Lord. I'm so lucky with where I live now, it's water proof and I've a garden with lots of fox gloves, wild flowers and a Wisteria which is quite extraordinary! Imagine that in east London! I'm constantly amazed by what self seeds. I hid an ugly wall with four Bamboos which have become giants! When it rains it's like living in Burma! Gardening is like History, it can become a true obsession...
But just wondered, I'm "doing" sources at the moment, has anyone read Buck on Morton and More? Or Cornwallis? The early, c17th, Society of Antiquaries really put the boot in and "went" for traditional anti-Richards. And I thought I was too, Gung Ho! I'd love to know what you think. 
More Happy Cheers, Minette.