AR wrote:

Also agreed! I think we have reached an accord!

How boring! I do apologise for being so reasonable, AR.

But here's something I prepared earlier, as Fanny Craddock used to say; the site wouldn't let me preview or post it this morning. Really a response to Catigern - in reply to his silly apoplectic roaring.

Catigern wrote:

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Calm yourself, Leonard.

Catigern wrote:

There is simply NO logical and consistent case that can be made for Tit. Reg. to have been valid until the Hunchback's death, but not thereafter.

But I didn't say that TR was valid until Richard of Gloucester's death: I said that TR was valid - was the law - until Parliament repealed it, the first Parliament of Henry's reign, which was called in November 1485. Was that Parliament legitimate? What an interesting point. Surely it was, because the old king was well dead and in his parking lot, and Henry was by then the rightful king. I may not like that, but it was true: Tydder had been "acclaimed, crowned and anointed" as king, and had been "called by the Commons to that dignity". Just as Richard had been.

According to David Starkey and Edmund Plowden ("Treatise on Succession" - see below), it was the acclamation, crowning and anointing - "the very diamond" - that had made Henry king on October 30th, and his Parliament did therefore "have the competence" to repeal any law passed by the previous regime. Until that was done, TR stood. But it was all a farce, I agree; albeit a legal and accepted farce (again, see below).

Catigern wrote:

Such 'laws' are merely the propaganda of victorious parties while they are ascendant.

RAAAAAAAA!

Do you really think I don't understand that, Catigern - this abuse of Parliament's authority? But there were already - even in the late 15th/early 16th centuries - decent Parliamentarians who were uneasy about the relationship between monarch and Parliament: members of the Commons were already murmuring about Parliament being in effect no more than a rubber stamp for the monarch's whims. And wasn't the judicial authority of Parliament effectively by-passed by Henry VII's detested Council Learned in the Law, a situation which caused even more unease? Things were, of course, going to get much worse under Henry VIII.

Decades before Peter Wentworth - that early Puritan Parliamentarian firebrand who dared challenge Elizabeth I's prerogative - Thomas More was writing "Utopia", the brilliant piece of satire that was a searing critique of the first Tudor's regime. Published in 1516, it was a warning, aimed at the second Tudor, against tyranny and the abuse of power.

PS Re Starkey and Plowden's "Treatise on Succession" - here's a message I posted yonks ago (when I've found it - will post it in a sec.). But it's a bad sign when I start repeating myself and repeating myself and repeating myself. I seem to remember saying about four years ago (on the BBC) that we kept going round and round Thomas More's mulberry bush with all this. We've been round it a fair few times since. 12,000 views of this thread, but perhaps time to give it all a rest.

Here's the old message from June 5th 2012:

Minette Minor wrote: And so did Henry Tudor have any claim to the throne? It's a question which must be asked I'm afraid. The question is irrelevant. Legitimacy - or royal descent for that matter - does not matter. Henry Tudor - once safely crowned - was King of England because he had been *recognised* and - crucially - *anointed* as such. A king - or queen - becomes king or queen in England "by proclamation, by acceptance and by oaths of allegiance" and, of course, by the anointing and recognition rituals within the coronation ceremony, those solemn rituals which "wipe out all past evils." We may not like David Starkey's performance in "The Trial of Richard III", but his comments on this legal point have to be taken seriously; he quoted Sir Edmund Plowden (I think from his "Treatise on Succession"): "Accession is like a very diamond - yea, the Philosopher's Stone - which wipeth out all blot." Starkey, of course, pointed out the example of Elizabeth I. She had been declared illegitimate in 1536 (and she was the daughter of a convicted traitress) - that ruling on her status was neither challenged nor changed: Elizabeth lived and reigned, not just as a virgin, but as a bastard. So the status of the Beauforts is really irrelevant to the argument - Henry Tudor could have been fathered by the illegitimate grandson of the Bishop of Bangor's butler (he was actually) - but once anointed and recognised he was the king all right. How long he would manage to hold onto the crown was another matter altogether, of course. There was always the danger that others would put themselves forward as more suitable candidates for those all-important rituals - right of conquest and all that, as Mad Nan points out. The whole idea of a legal "claim to the throne" was actually a bit of a farce. John O'Farrell puts it quite nicely in his chapter on the Tudors ("An Utterly Impartial History of Britain: or 2000 Years of Upper Class Idiots in Charge"): " 'Oi, Henry Tudor, don't you tell me what I can and cannot do or I'll make you regret it!' 'Yeah? You and whose army?' 'Well, *my* army actually, this massive one right behind me...' "

Quote :

The old aristocratic warrior elite you mention in your earlier post was to prove to be no match in the coming war against the new Machiavellian elite (Henry, Bray, Morton and Fox).

Hmmm... *Not* happy with any suggestion that the people in charge were any less subtle, devious and cunning earlier than they were later. Smacks too much of the silly old idea that medieval people were 'simpler folk living in simpler times', and that said simpler times came to an end in the late 15th century.

Quote :

Do you really think I don't understand that, Catigern - this abuse of Parliament's authority?

What 'authority' ? Parliaments, then and now, have *power* if enough powerful people choose to support their diktats , not 'authority'. 'The law', whatever its source, is simply the wish of those who have achieved overt ascendency, nothing more.

Temperance wrote:

Here's the old message from June 5th 2012:


A king - or queen - becomes king or queen in England "by proclamation, by acceptance and by oaths of allegiance" and, of course, by the anointing and recognition rituals within the coronation ceremony, those solemn rituals which "wipe out all past evils."

It is precisely this kind of assertion that helped produce republicanism in 18th century France - and still does today, at least in my case.

The truth is that just about every conceivable conceit, fallacy and syllogistic contortion has been employed to justify individuals assuming the role of monarch, not just in England but in absolutely every instance of a monarch anywhere. Think about the quote above; "by proclamation, by acceptance and by oaths of allegiance". Now imagine that we are not discussing crowning a monarch but the formation of a criminal gang under a leader, all of whom have been arrested, and are now up in court and arguing for an implied legitimacy of the leader's status as such - much as mafia crime bosses when arraigned have similarly attempted to receive preferential treatment from the law based on their assumed status. "Proclamation" of this status amongst the boss's former peers - whoever conducted it - is an ex-ante assertion and would immediately be dismissed in a court of law as irrelevant. Both "acceptance" and "oath of allegiance" are by the same definition ex-post facto assertions and are equally irrelevant. In other words all three claims fail to address the issue of legitimacy whatsoever. They are aspects to the window dressing surrounding the real act - the acquisition of power by an individual - and explain nothing about how, when or why that act occurred. They therefore have no legal bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy or otherwise of that act.

Yet they are trotted out with depressing regularity throughout the history of monarchy as "enough" justification for these power grabs to keep the rabble happy. Even more depressingly the rabble seem to accept this insult to their collective intelligence. Which of course begs the question ...

EDIT: - You can imagine therefore what I think about ointments that absolve people of sins as part of this process, so I won't elaborate.

PLease note that I did say:

Temperance wrote:

According to David Starkey and Edmund Plowden ("Treatise on Succession" - see below), it was the acclamation, crowning and anointing - "the very diamond" - that had made Henry king on October 30th, and his Parliament did therefore "have the competence" to repeal any law passed by the previous regime. Until that was done, TR stood. But it was all a farce, I agree; albeit a legal and accepted farce.

Also that I referred to Richard II's "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm off from an anointed king" as "bleatings". Obviously in the real world the coronation oil, balm or "ointment" (you make it sound like some sort of holy Germolene) counted for nothing.

But how poetic were Richard's bleatings. Here's what Shakespeare has him say to big, butch, bemused Bolingbroke:

"Now mark me how I will undo myself.
I give this heavy weight from off my head,
And this unwieldy sceptre from my hand,
The pride of kingly sway from out my heart;
With mine own tears I wash away my balm,
With my own hands I give away my crown,
With my own tongue deny my sacred state,
With mine own breath release all duteous oaths;
All pomp and majesty I do forswear;
My manors, rents, revenues, I forgo;
My acts, decrees and statutes I deny:
God pardon all oaths that are broke to me!
God keep all vows unbroke that swear to thee!
Make me, that nothing have, with nothing grieved,
And thou with all pleased, that hast all achieved.
Long may'st thou live in Richard's seat to sit,
And soon lie Richard in an earthly pit.
God save King Henry, unkinged Richard says,
And send him many years of sunshine days.
What more remains?"

(Richard II Act IV sc i Westminster Hall)

PS Catigern, my little furry friend, as ever you have made me pause and think. Will go away and mull a bit about Parliament's authority, law and things. That should keep me quiet for a bit.

My point is that arguing for or against the "legitimacy" of any monarchical appointment is a blind that can only serve to deflect attention from the real nub of the case - namely in this instance what could be presumed to be motivating both men in their actions to attain the kingship. There is a danger in assuming that because Henry's grab followed Richard's then the latter's efforts were primarily focused on "retaining" the crown. By my reasoning Henry came along while Richard's grab was still ongoing. Unctions and ointments aside there was no more actual validity to his claim to be regent than there would have been for anyone who in post-Wittan England wasn't the male offspring of the previous incumbent. He was in the process of prosecuting his claim when another man decided to do exactly the same thing.

In a situation where both principal claimants had militarised and divided the entire country into two aggressively opposed camps, and where wavering between both camps became a profitable enterprise for a considerable number of parties, then the two lads in the tower were effectively screwed no matter what way the thing panned out. "Blaming" Richard - even if it was his deed - is pointless.

The real question that should be asked is "who amongst the nobility were prepared to ally themselves with Edward V"? If the answer is none then the culpability for the two prisoners' extermination is shared amongst the entire "nobility" - along with any lackeys like Ralph Shaa etc who aided them in their sordid shenanigans.

Temperance wrote:

PS Catigern, my little furry friend, as ever you have made me pause and think. Will go away and mull a bit about Parliament's authority, law and things. That should keep me quiet for a bit.

Join the cause, Temperance!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EmxbbAoDq4

Arwe Rheged wrote:

What I was suggesting was that if the lads had died in entirely innnocent circumstances, is it not likely that the fact of their death would have been announced and a big funereal fuss made as befits a prince?

It suited Richard, as if they had died of sickness in 1483 (two years before Richard died, ergo no big difficulty for him to announce the fact), he no longer had to rely on the fudge of TR to legitimise his own hold on power.

That's fair enough Arwe although the sweating sickness (or any sickness) hypothesis only really works if applied to 1485.

Putting a Ricardian hat on for a moment let's suggest that the Princes were still alive at the beginning of that year. Richard had ensured that they were well secreted in the Tower and (for his own reasons of politic) ignored accusations by Guillaume de Rochefort etc regarding their supposed murder. He wasn't prepared to rise to the bait and was simply refusing to confirm or deny rumours of their death. Keeping the Woodville faction and the Lancastrian faction both guessing may well have seemed an ideal situation from his point of view. Perhaps it was an attempt at divide and rule which, nevertheless, backfired on him spectacularly.

Now the thing about the Sweat of 1485 is that although it broke out virulently in London in September, there is evidence that it could have been ticking-over at a lower intensity earlier in the year. The Crowland Chronicle, for example, attributes Thomas Lord Stanley's absence from the Battle of Bosworth to him and/or his men being laid low by the sweating sickness.

Richard left London in the Spring and went on progress arriving in Nottingham on 9th June. As far as he was concerned the Princes were still ensconced in the Tower. Henry landed at Milford Haven 2 months later and Richard was killed at Bosworth 2 weeks after that.

Now let's suppose that it was during that last fortnight that Edward V and/or Richard, Duke of York suddenly took ill and died. In which case neither Richard III nor Henry Tudor would have known about it. When Henry arrived in London on 28 August he would have found this out. This presented a serious quandary. He couldn't immediately announce to the world that the boys were (conveniently for him) dead. The suspicion would quite rightly fall on him as a murderer while simultaneously exonerating the late Richard. Neither could he embarrass his French patrons with such an unfortunate 'co-incidence'. No. Whatever happened (as far as Henry was concerned) the true circumstances of the boys' death had to be kept secret.

Vizzer wrote:

Now the thing about the Sweat of 1485 is that although it broke out virulently in London in September, there is evidence that it could have been ticking-over at a lower intensity earlier in the year. The Crowland Chronicle, for example, attributes Thomas Lord Stanley's absence from the Battle of Bosworth to him and/or his men being laid low by the sweating sickness.

Lord Stanley (Thomas) not at at the Battle of Bosworth!!? He was there all right! Lord Stanley (Margaret Beaufort's husband) and his brother, Sir William Stanley, arrived with their separate armies having shadowed Henry Tudor's forces. Lord Stanley's sweating sickness excuse that the Croyland Chronicler mentions was sent to Richard at Nottingham, probably on or around the 15th August. Stanley was supposed to show up there to join the king's forces.

When he received Stanley's evasive answer, Richard kept Lord Strange, Thomas Stanley's son, as hostage. When he sent a warning to Stanley on the morning of Bosworth that Strange would be executed if there was any treachery, Stanley sent back the infamous reply that he "had other sons". In the event, Stange was not killed; Richard seems to have decided that his fate, like everyone else's that day, would be decided by the outcome of the battle.

Here's the relevant bit from the Croyland Chronicle:


A little before the landing of these persons, Thomas Stanley, seneschal of the king’s household, had received permission to go into Lancashire, his native country, to visit his home and family, from whom he had been long separated. Still however, he was permitted to stay there on no other condition than that of sending his eldest son, George lord Strange, to the king at Nottingham; which he accordingly did.

The king’s opponents, as already stated, having landed at Milford in Wales, made their way through rugged and indirect tracts in the northern part of the province; where William Stanley, brother of the said lord seneschal, as lord chamberlain of North Wales, was holding the sole command. Upon this, the king sent word to the said lord Stanley, requesting him, without the least delay, to present himself before him at Nottingham. For the king was afraid lest that, as it really turned out, the mother of the said earl of Richmond, whom the lord [Thomas] Staley had married, might induce her husband to go over to the party of her son. On this, with wonderful * * * * he made an excuse that he was suffering from an attack of the sweating sickness, and could not possibly come.

University of Liecester have published their first peer reviewed paper on the search for Tricky Dicky

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130523223744.htm

Thank you for that link, ID.

I found this interesting:

"Projects developed in this way may become more common in future as non-specialists increasingly become users, stakeholders and participants in academic research. What is somewhat different from the ways in which archaeological professionals and amateurs have generally worked together is that in this case the non-specialists played a role in shaping the intellectual frameworks of the project, although the final project design (including how questions could appropriately be asked of the evidence), and the execution of the project in practical terms remained in the hands of the archaeologists."

Here's a BBC report on the child-murdering hunchback's grave - note the total lack of any suggestion that the disposal of his body didn't amount to a Christian burial...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-22647770

And here's another report that illustrates the nasty, spiteful, vindictive nature of the Ricardian mindset...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-21761540

Most unusually, 'Antiquity' has made the paper open access so here it is http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/087/0519/ant0870519.pdf.

Well, as a nasty, spiteful, vindictive, child-murdering-hunchback supporting Ricardian, I shall read that with interest, ferval. Many thanks for posting the link.

Admitting to being a Ricardian these days is a terrible mistake. It's almost as bad as saying you're a Christian, or even an alcoholic. It's the sign of a disordered personality - means pitying looks and well-meaning attempts to help, followed by ridicule and possible social rejection. Odd how the world turns. Or maybe not so odd.

I've been thinking this morning about why Richard III's story is so fascinating. Strikes me that it has all the ingredients of classical tragedy: Richard actually fulfils all of Aristotle's requirements for your proper tragic hero. Pity Shakespeare wrote his play so early - he should have waited a bit. Had a mature WWW written about Richard around 1605, and presented him in a different way - as the flawed hero guilty of tragic hubris, rather than as a very amusing Vice figure - "Richard III" (which isn't, apart from the character of Richard himself, a very good play) could have been a Shakespearean tragedy to rank with "Macbeth" and the rest.

Thanks for the link ferval, I tried the Antiquity site yesterday but it was under maintenance. Now all that is needed is any opinions/input from other archaeologists/historians on Leicester's findings and analysis.

nordmann wrote:

The real question that should be asked is "who amongst the nobility were prepared to ally themselves with Edward V"? If the answer is none then the culpability for the two prisoners' extermination is shared amongst the entire "nobility" - along with any lackeys like Ralph Shaa etc who aided them in their sordid shenanigans.

That hits the nail on the head.

All the hand-wringing and accusation-levelling over the mysterious fate of the Princes in the Tower doesn't change the fact that Edward V and Richard, Duke of York were abandoned by the nobilty, by parliament, by the church and by guidhall on a factor of almost 100%. No-one raised a finger. This contrasts with Richard III himself who was only unthroned (unhorsed?) after a violent pitched battle.

Temperance wrote:

I've been thinking this morning about why Richard III's story is so fascinating. Strikes me that it has all the ingredients of classical tragedy: Richard actually fulfils all of Aristotle's requirements for your proper tragic hero. Pity Shakespeare wrote his play so early - he should have waited a bit. Had a mature WWW written about Richard around 1605, and presented him in a different way - as the flawed hero guilty of tragic hubris, rather than as a very amusing Vice figure - "Richard III" (which isn't, apart from the character of Richard himself, a very good play) could have been a Shakespearean tragedy to rank with "Macbeth" and the rest.

Good point. I've often wondered if Richard's death at Bosworth was somehow a case of 'suicide-by-Richmond'. One can only imagine that he must have been a deeply depressed man by the late summer of 1485. His son Edward had died the previous year while his wife Anne had followed 11 months later. Richard had then spent much of that summer slaughtering stags in Sherwood. Accounts of the Battle of Bosworth Field would also suggest a do-and-die temperament at that time. There was the unnecessarily premature and personally-led charge towards Henry, there was the fighting on foot in the thick of the battle and (crucially) there was the refusing to temporarily retire from the melee when offered the chance to do so.

Temperance wrote:

Richard actually fulfils all of Aristotle's requirements for your proper tragic hero.

What on earth was heroic about that militarily , politically and diplomatically incompetent, treacherous, grasping scumbag...?

Temperance wrote:

Pity Shakespeare wrote his play so early - he should have waited a bit.
Had a mature WWW written about Richard around 1605, and presented him in
a different way - as the flawed hero guilty of tragic hubris....

And just how would Old Bill have gone about making the Hunchback look heroic ? And who would have been the villain (surely not Henry the Liberator, who was, after all, King James's Great, Great Grandfather...)?

Oh, and if Dickon Kiddiethrottle *really* did have a death wish by the summer of 1485, then why couldn't he just jump off a bridge in London? A C-in-C's first duty is to his followers, and if the Hunchback really led them into a battle in which he intended to die, then he betrayed them just as much as he had previously betrayed both his rightful king (Henry VI) and his own family...

It is difficult to find any major politician about whom it could not be superficially construed that they epitomised to some degree the essence of what passes for tragedy on the stage. It is the nature of the beast. People whose lives down to their very essence are dictated by the need to pretend to greatness, or at least a desire to be seen as so, are doomed to become hostages to the simple mathematical certainty that greatness, by its very definition, is a relative term which, since it falls at the superlative end of the spectrum of recognition and achievement, must be confined to a very few.

The vast majority of these people, even including the ones who for fleeting periods in their own time had the word "great" assigned to their character, are reduced in the end to historical footnotes, even mediocre ones at that. Their role in events, however world-changing some of those events may have been, are in the end but roles. For those who, through circumstance of politicis or simply old age, live long enough to see that transformation to mediocrity in its initial stages then tragedy will haunt even their own reflections on their achievements.

Personally I can think of many many better candidates from the world of politics for the lead role in any classical tragedy than Richard of Gloucester. What works against his own candidature is the obvious opportunism, self-serving but ultimately pointless manipulation of the reality around him in his policies, and most of all the underlying mendaciousness with which his political career was punctuated in its latter years. This is not the stuff of a true tragic hero - unless of course one confuses pathos with tragedy, or fails to appreciate the subtle but essential difference between delusional ambition and delusion from which one cannot escape, shaped by the people, characteristics and events of the age into which one is born. Too many of Richard's delusions pretend to the latter but are better explained as the former. And the truth in this is eminently revealed in the contradictory behaviour in which he so often crucially indulged. A true tragic hero follows an inevitable trajectory to his doom. Richard turned many convoluted corners on his own crooked flight to his doom.

However even all this is rather pointless in the context of the fate of the Princes in the Tower. Their fate, it appears to me, was less down to any tragedy unfolding as personified or otherwise by Richard III, but by a complete and utter absence of any principled heroes in the plot at all who might have risen to the occasion as the final act entered its closing scenes and - in the manner that any great playwright would consider de-rigeur in the circumstances - reveal all the other principal characters as debased corruptions of the noble principles they mouthed and, in doing so, rescue the boys from the status of pawns in these men's ambitions and restore both them and integrity itself to centre stage.

This never happened. And that there wasn't even one minor character who it appeared was even likely to at any point, suggests that any drama featuring Richard III (or indeed Henry VII) is bound therefore to be less a tragedy and more an examination of the sordidness of naked political ambition. Black comedy is the genre that springs fastest to mind.

Well done, William Shakespeare. That much he got right.

If Nordmann will forgive my editing...

nordmann wrote:

all the other principal characters [were] debased corruptions of the noble principles they mouthed and ... the boys [enjoyed/endured] the status of pawns in these men's ambitions... there wasn't even one minor character who it appeared was even likely to at any point [exhibit any nobility of principle]

And let us not forget all the other, less socially eminent, victims . The suffering of every single direct and indirect casualty of the Wars of the Roses - especially all those men who died in obscene agony on the battlefield - occurred because some magnate or other decided that merely enjoying wealth, security and luxury to a degree unimaginable to most of his contemporaries simply wasn't enough for him - he had to be King as well!

Twas ever thus! If we look back just beyond the start of the Plantagenet era, we see the future Henry II and his parents destroying the peace of Stephen's* reign purely because they simply couldn't be content with all the unearned advantages that went with being hereditary Counts of Anjou etc, rather than, eg, half-starved and overworked pheasants...

*Early Plantagenet propaganda did at least as thorough a job of blackening poor old Stephen's name in the eyes of posterity as the 'Tudor propaganda' about which the silly Ricardians make so much noise did with the Hunchback.

Only got a minute.

Catigern, dear heart, I've now got a vision of a group of medieval peasants sitting around calling one another comrade, quoting from "The Rights of Man" and "Das Kapital", and John Cleese angrily demanding, "What have the Plantagenets ever done for us?"

Of course they were all a bunch of bastards back then; Tony Soprano, family and friends could easily have been part of that select group of English aristocrats, but there *is* evidence - which you consistently ignore - that Richard of Gloucester did at least show some concern for the rights - legal and other - of the ordinary people he was supposed to be governing. But what the hell.

I know nothing about Stephen - he's one for ID to comment on.

nordmann wrote:

However even this is rather pointless in the context of the Princes in the Tower.

Which I suppose means, "Shut up, you're off topic again." Fair enough, but I still like the idea of Richard as a tragic hero; it could be argued that the man was essentially of a noble nature, but was too ambitious, and that, in pursuit of that ambition, he made a fatal error of judgement (well, several, actually) which led to his ultimate downfall and death. Bit of a simplistic summary of what it means or meant to be tragic hero, I know, but you get my drift. But I agree that this thread is not the time or place for such discussion.

But I will finish, if I may, with the quotation which immediately came to my mind when I read your message. All the old stuff I read years and years ago (see George Steiner's "The Death of Tragedy") resurfaced. We don't do tragedy these days, just farce. (Mind you, Shakespeare understood that too - his Lear and that other Gloucester do a brilliant Estragon and Vladimir routine in Act IV of "King Lear"). Here's the quotation; it's from Slawomir Mrozek's "Tango", translated by N. Bethell, adapted by Tom Stoppard:

Stolil: You fool - is that what you think? Don't you see that nowadays tragedy isn't possible any more? Reality is stronger than any convention, even tragedy. Do you know what you'd have got if I'd shot him?

Arthur: Something irrevocable, something on the scale of the old masters.

Stomil: Not at all. A farce, that's what . Today farce is the only thing possible. A corpse* is no help at all. Why not accept this? - Farce can still be fine art.

*Or skeleton?

Any road up, Catty and Nord, that's me lot for today. Off to the beach before it starts to rain. Apologies for being so silly and off topic.

"Off topic" on this thread is an oxymoron - as long as the personal culpability for the liquidation of the two young artistocrats is the assumed central topic then any deviation into the character of the main suspects is valid, but only within the implied constriction of the terms of the debate. I disagree with the premise upon which those terms were assumed.

My point is really that personal culpability is irrelevant in this case. Motive for murder has been demonstrated in all the suspects' cases, as has a tenuous motive for each party to keep the victims alive or at least claim in retrospect to have wanted them alive. No motive has been ascertained and no evidence found either for anyone to endorse the victims' actual liberation. In a police investigation this would be called circumstantial collusion (like trying to ascertain which of the armed bank robbers actually fired the shot that killed the innocent teller). The nature of the underlying crime and of complicity in the execution of that crime is common to all the major protagonists. Discussing personal culpability in those circumstances is like devoting police resources to analysing how the falling out amongst the thieves panned out after the crime had occurred instead of investigating the actual crime itself.

Temperance wrote:

Catigern, dear heart, I've now got a vision of a group of medieval peasants sitting around calling one another comrade...

Oi! Temperance! I preach anarchism, NOT socialism!

Temperance wrote:

Of course they were all a bunch of bastards
back then....

And politicians still are today - if anything, they're worse in the post-absolutist era in which an underling's right to withdraw loyalty is utterly denied.

Temperance wrote:

...there *is* evidence -
which you consistently ignore - that Richard of Gloucester did at least
show some concern for the rights - legal and other - of the ordinary
people he was supposed to be governing...

I don't 'ignore' such evidence - I simply haven't seen any! Ricardians are always making extravagant claims about the Hunchback protecting the poor, but they never seem to get round to giving any actual examples of this hypothetical nobility. Plus, as I've observed before, the common folk of the time - surely the best judges of such matters - don't seem to have reacted either to Richard Nephewsbane's usurpation, or to Henry the Liberator's campaign and triumph, as though they themselves regarded the former as their champion...

Charles Ross, the historian who specialised in Wars related to Flowers, hadn't much time for Richard's "reforms" - most of which were essentially deferred legislation from his brother's last parliament anyway. Ross's summing up was that Richard reacted to: "...his own political circumstances, as a usurper who was given little breathing-space to affirm his good intentions as King, and for whom an immediate appeal to the goodwill of his subjects was of overall importance." It wasn't a million miles from the modern government that attempts to woo the voters into re-electing it by passing a dollop of popularist laws at the same time in the run-up to dissolution of parliament. They at least have had a term or so to formulate their plan and think about what they're enacting. Richard however was in a rush and just passed anything populist he found lying round in the in-tray.

Ross was not anti-Dickie by the way. He gave credit to the usurper for a sincere interest in law reform. The point was however that under Edward such commercial and legal reforms were used as bargaining chips - essential bargaining chips at that if one wanted to control the commercial class and the aristocracy. By cashing in all these chips in one go as Richard did it was effectively relinquishing control of these people at a crucial time in the vain hope that a surge of popularity would protect him and let him ride the ensuing crisis. It is probable he was trying to flush out his erstwhile foes posing as friends through this method. However any mafioso worth his salt would have told him the flaw in that reasoning. It works in a local territory (where there's always Big Bro to fall back on) - but not at the Capo di Tutti Capi level. Then it's suicide. And it was.

nordmann wrote:

However any mafioso worth his salt would have told him the flaw in that reasoning. It works in a local territory (where there's always Big Bro to fall back on) - but not at the Capo di Tutti Capi level. Then it's suicide. And it was.

Yes, what you say - and backtothedarkplace's comments about second-in-commands who can't cope with the Top Job (made earlier on this thread) - sadly just about sum up Richard's tragedy.

But I'm fascinated by the similarities between the Plantagenets/Tudors and the Sopranos. Edward IV and his famous grandson were so remarkably like Tony Soprano (all three even had an eating and women disorder). The change in these three men from likeable, laid-back, apparently affable commanders, men who knew *exactly* how to deal with the trickiest of men and situations and how, as you say, to "bargain" and so control effectively without anyone losing face, to - when it was necessary - ruthless, vicious, terrifying killers, could be instantaneous and shocking. Richard was not in the same league. I remember arguing with Andrew Spencer ages ago on the old BBC site, saying that essentially Richard was hopelessly politically naïve. Spencer, polite at always, dismissed the idea. For Andrew (if I remember correctly), Richard was "a consummate political player". But I was interested to read in Ashdown-Hill's book my own assessment of Richard as a leader; A-H used my very words - "politically naïve". Richard was not just politically naïve. Like all idealists, especially pious ones - and Richard is generally acknowledged to have been a genuinely pious man - the man could be seen (by some) as a fool. He was completely outclassed by the shrewder and more worldly-wise men - and women - around him. Shame, but there you go.



PS Don't be fooled: Charles Ross *hated* Richard. Ask Minette.

David Chase (is he still alive?) and Hilary Mantel. Now *that* could be a winning combination.

The Ricardians of course say that Ross had it in for their boy - but that's like Liverpool supporters saying that the referee "hates" the little Uruguayan arm-biter who plays for them at the minute. It's all relative ...

Hicks is another unfair referee. There are a lot of them about.

Catigern, this is for you!

How could I have forgotten the "watery tart" sketch? The peasants are definitely anarcho-something-or-others, not just socialists. Wrong king, but what the heck...

Temperance wrote:

the Penn programme about Henry VII is no longer available on iPlayer. I don't know how I missed that one - I really enjoyed Penn's "Winter King", his biography of Henry Tydder. That tantalising little clip is very interesting.

It'll be shown on BBC 2 - tonite at 9.00pm:

Henry VII: Winter King

(for those in Great Britain & Northern Ireland)

Thanks, Vizzer. I recorded it last night and have just watched it. Excellent programme! Thanks too to Trike for posting the link on Historical Videos.

That Thomas Penn is so good - what I call a real historian!

Henry the Liberator, eh? Don't think so! Henry VII was well weird.

PS Must go to Milford Haven and splash about the beach in my wellies.

I feel as though I should apologize for butting in, everything is going so well and I have actually laughed out loud at some things, Catigern's elevation to Lion status and SST's way of dealing with dissension...I've gone for a month without dipping in and spreading muddle-headed thinking! Thomas Penn was a pleasant shock, yes SST, I actually read his book. If I threw everything I must read with great force across the room just because I didn't like their writing style...the house would be a shattered shell! Anyway, the point I'd like to refer to is Edward/Edmund Plowden's, "Treatise on Succession" so beloved of Starkey on Legitimacy.

"Succession wipes out illegitimacy as it does every other obstacle to the throne" by "proclomation, acceptance, oaths of allegience (led by RIII himself as stated in the 1984 Trial) and the execution of Acts of State". Accedance is a very diamond which wipeth out all blot". So vaccuous, a tool used by all absolute dictators in some shape or form. The main problem is that the British (unwritten) constitution doesn't accept it. History flows and can't be broken up into chunks, yet it seems to be today. Yet this is the arguement used by Starkey to defend illigitimate monarchs, Edward V and Elizabeth I, for totally different but useful and pragmatic reasons. Let's not bother to look into the veracity of their claims.
It can't be denied that Richard III "past muster" on all counts and Parliament ruled that it was due to Edward V's lack of legitimacy which blocked his encumbancy of the throne. It is also due to historians like Starkey that Titulus Regius and the thorough examination of the "pre-contract" between Lady Eleanor Butler and Edward IV has been blocked to historians.

And yet simple pragmatism must accept that Elizabeth I, considered to be a bastard throughout her life, her father's wife Catherine of Aragon was still living in 1533 when she was born, must be accepted as the rightful queen quite simply because there was no one left living who could have taken her place!

Without going into the "fate of the princes", RIII left many possible claimants to the throne after his early death, John Earl of Lincoln, Edward Earl of Warwick, the de la Poles and the Pole families but by 1558 all Planategent claimants would be gone or living in fear on the margins of Tudor Society. Unlike Henry VIII, who appears to have made overtures concerning making his illegtimate son Henry Earl of Richmond a possible heir, RIII did not even contemplate making his bastard son John his possible heir, instead naming his legitimate nephew Lincoln as his successor. John was killed by Henry VII for no apparent reason.

After the death of Mary I, the only real alternative to Elizabeth I was Mary Queen of Scots, the Roman Catholic grandaughter of Margaret Tudor, queen of France and Scotland. And as we all know this was not going to happen.
After all which had gone before the very idea of not crowning Elizabeth as queen would have put the Reformation at stake. The Tudors made up their own rules as far as monarchy and legitimacy were concerned.

But legitimacy did matter! Almost exactly 200 years after RIII died at Bosworth, Charles II had an estimated fourteen illegitimate children living, none legitimate, including the young, handsome and Protestant duke of Monmouth. And yet Charles II named his Roman Catholic but legitimate brother James II as his successor. A consumate politician, Charles II gave James only three years to reign (he was right!) but refused all efforts to pretend he had married Lucy Walters when in exile at the Hague. Lucy even came to London to meet Cromwell dangling the young James of Monmouth in the hope of "selling" him to the Protector as Charles II's son, and he sent her packing as a trollope with her bastard. It's also interesting to note how few people supported Monmouth when he attempted to wrest the throne from James II immediately after Charles II's death.

Then of course there was, "the race to breed" after George IV's daughter, princess Charlotte died in childbirth in 1817, leaving no heir. George's brother, later William IV and his four other brothers all had bastard children, none legitimate, so Edward duke of Kent won when Alexandrina was born in 1819. The newspapers had a field day! It was said that it wasn't until the actual Christening that a final name for the infant was arrrived at and a very drunk George IV told his younger brother Edward to call her, "Victory"!

It seems that "succession does not wipe out illegitimacy and every other obstacle to the throne"! The British people have quite a good reputation when it comes defining what are simply fine words, oratory and lies. But then again has this country and its establishment ever lived under such terror as it knew under the Tudor monarchs? One hundred and eighteen years of buttock clenching fear!

Oh God so badly written, in some mitigation I am being distracted from what I want to say by cleverly planted and extremely funny links. However I'm scared and want to know if anyone knows why? No, not the sun-ripened prawn sandwich I've just consumed nor my Labrador who somehow clings to my right arm as I type but why all this stuff on the early Tudors and late Plantagenets now???
Is it simply Finding Richard? Or is there some deeper more sinister motive? And why Anne Boylen? We all know that she had to die, so why are "they" giving her so much air time, now?
Watching that recent programme about her was like a nightmare! All the people you like least in the History telling "genre" were there! Alison being "nice" and orthodox, fluffy Philippa whom my daughters tell me has not seen her first face lift, expounding the need for A. Boylen to mate with her brother? And Hilary Mantel, sitting us all down to tell us a tale of what History didn't quite hear...I wanted to throw myself at David Starkey's legs and ask for deliverance. Me! Oops forgot the pretty blonde, Historian, name escapes me, who liked to translate, French or Latin to actually say, "I'm not one of the them"! But there must be a better way of face to camera action? Anyway the person who asks the questions is beside the ones with the camera and boom. It's all so flaming earnest! And you don't have to nod constantly.

When Larry Lamb did, "who do you think you are"? He went into a record office and asked the nicely dressed lady at the desk for something quite complicated. She simply turned around, smiled and offered him an envelope. "do you mean this"? "yes, thank you" he replied and actually laughed it was so ridiculously staged. If that had been you or I we'd have been ferreting around for hours and told to "hurry up"! We'd have emerged dusty and damp, quite sure we don't actually exist. Well I would have. Libraries turn me into a monster! Survival of the fittest and I'm getting it before you do! People don't walk down neatly stacked rolls of vellum looking vaguely interested, then arrive at one at the end open in the exactly right place!
At the very,very end of that terrible prog. on Anne Boylen, before the titles, (which are always interrupted!) it said, "Henry married Jane Seymore 11 days after Anne's death" as we all know! So why flaming bother?

At last Thomas Penn has told us all what a nasty man Henry VII was and what a spoiled and pampered pooch Henry VIII was and we are shocked? The only thing which shocked me was that he got to stand on the "pavement" infront of the High Alter! God I've tried. And over the past few days some crazed Evangelical History Professor has told us all how Thomas Cromwell founded the modern state of England. Tell that to the Abbots he boiled in oil! And there's more! Tonight it's "teatime with the Tudors" some old codgers telling us 101 things to do with honey and kitchens get hot when you cook for 5,000 people at once, probably at Hampton Court, again, and then...Philippa Gregory's "the other Boylen girl" with Scarlet O'Hara Thingy. Why, why, why?

Are we being "warmed up" for the summer spectacular of Philippa Gregory's, "The White Queen" mashed up with Philippa Gregory's, "The Red Queen", with a little Philippa Gregory's, "White Princess" as a garnish? We are, aren't we? Mermaids will abound in land locked Luxemburg, nothing will be factually accurate and all will smell of herrings!

I think that I prefer the olden days,(well I would wouldn't I?) when History was not "sexy" and the truth mattered more than audience figures and book signings. The ginger ringleted lady who reminds me of Violet in "Just Wiliam" and has done all things "Victorian" has been given a £1million to write a novel about Jack the Ripper, "as he may have been"! No doubt she will re-emerge to tell us what royal babies are when Princess Kate gives birth. What went wrong?

People enjoy History and they have been starved of it for too long. At school they may have "done" the Nazis, Glass Ceilings, the American West and Henry VIII. They want to know more but they are being spoon fed romantic rubbish. Even the Beef Eaters at the Tower are thick and follow a "script" but they must be photogenic! I give up! Please God don't allow Grafton Regis to become spoiled, having ploughed through, "The White Queen" I really don't believe la Gregory has ever been there! Do these people "do" History only to make money? It's tragic.

.....all of which still notably fails to deal with the central question (gamely answered by Temp, but as yet not by Min) of what gave RIII a greater claim to rule than any who came before him or went after him and what actually makes any one monarch "illegitimate" when compared to the rest of 'em..

... not to mention why anyone at this remove would uncritically support any of them, especially to the extent that any of them should be excused what was obviously an extremely common proclivity for the acquisition of power and a readiness to quickly implement whatever measures were required to satiate that procilivity and to hold on to the power thus attained.

It just strikes me as daft that anyone with an ounce of morality could claim to think that any one of these guys was "good" in the sense that they couldn't contemplate the liquidation of human obstacles to achieving their end. No one can claim to "know their history" and still harbour such naive notions.

Or can they?



Ricardian Bumper-sticker

We girls just love those bad boys!

Gran, we haven't had a picture of the deliciously evil Richard (Armitage) for ages - this is for you. What an R3 he would make! Much better than that chubby, rosy-faced reconstructed thing.



I thought the Mafia bumper sticker was a YouTube song. I've been trying to play it. That's Ricardians for you!

OK, moving on from nonsense about flowerpot men and Richard Armitage...

nordmann wrote:

... not to mention why anyone at this remove would uncritically support any of them, especially to the extent that any of them should be excused what was obviously an extremely common proclivity for the acquisition of power and a readiness to quickly implement whatever measures were required to satiate that procilivity and to hold on to the power thus attained.

It just strikes me as daft that anyone with an ounce of morality could claim to think that any one of these guys was "good" in the sense that they couldn't contemplate the liquidation of human obstacles to achieving their end. No one can claim to "know their history" and still harbour such naive notions.

Or can they?

And what is morality? What is being "good"? It's back to Machiavelli, isn't it? "When it is absolutely a question of the safety of one's country...there must be no consideration of just and unjust, of merciful or cruel, of praiseworthy or disgraceful." And the Italian never said that the end justifies the means, morally or otherwise, only that the end, when it is good, excuses the means. And what makes that end "good"? According to Machiavelli: "When the object is not individual self-interest, but the common good of all citizens."

Self-interest and common good. The two can so easily get muddled, of course, whether you're Richard III or Henry VII, and Machiavelli's warning against the inherent danger of individual or factional self-interest is just as potent today. But I still wonder if there was some kind of moral struggle for Richard of Gloucester (do I hear hollow laughter as usual?). For the likes of the Stanley Bros there was probably no such struggle, and Thomas Stanley's wife was no doubt sincerely convinced that what was good for the Beauforts, mere et fils, was also good for England.

I'm spouting quotations far too much these days on what is, after all, a history site, but this bit of dialogue from Bolt's play (not the film script) is perhaps relevant:

WOLSEY: Then, good night! Oh, your conscience is your own affair; but you're a
statesman! Do you remember the Yorkist Wars?

MORE: Very clearly.

WOLSEY: Let him die without an heir and we'll have them back again. Let him
die without an heir and this "peace" you think so much of will go out like that!
(He extinguishes the candle) Very well then . . . England needs an heir; certain
measures, perhaps regrettable, perhaps not- (Pompous) there is much in the
Church that needs reformation, Thomas- (MORE smiles) All right, regrettable! But
necessary, to get us an heir! Now explain how you as Councillor of England can
obstruct those measures for the sake of your own, private, conscience.

MORE: Well . . . I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private
conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . they lead their country by
a short route to chaos. (During this speech he relights the candle with another.)
And we shall have my prayers to fall back on.

WOLSEY: You'd like that, wouldn't you? To govern the country by prayers?

MORE: Yes, I should.

WOLSEY: I'd like to be there when you try.

But then again, there's nothing more dangerous than men who think their own will is God's too: "a matter on which prayer has not enlightened me" is probably the safest - and most honest - reply. (It was one of Cranmer's, poor sod; he should have stayed safe in Cambridge.)

Well Temp how can you call RA nonsense? actually he would be a very good R3 because of the long chin and the general looks.

I see the R3 society has been going since 1924 so no flash in the pan, I guess a lot of people have noticed how the Tudors treated any remaining Plantagenet descendents, at last people have spotted the Tudors for what they were.

Gran wrote:

Well Temp how can you call RA nonsense?

Sorry, Gran; I was just being whimsical last night, no doubt inappropriately so.

Gran wrote:

... at last people have spotted the Tudors for what they were.

Well, I think what nordmann, Catters and AR are saying is that it's about time we spotted the whole crew of 'em for "what they were".

One has to agree, I suppose (don't want to be thought naïve), but, although Machiavelli certainly did rule OK in this world (he hadn't written his horrid little book yet, of course; and, as I think Richard Rex once remarked, was probably signed up for Henry VII's excellent correspondence course on the art of political survival), and they - the various members of the Plantagenet and the Tudor families - were all equal in their self-interest and relentless pursuit of power, some were perhaps more equal than others. It could be argued that Richard of Gloucester, when it came to Machiavellian realpolitik, was pretty useless, completely out of his depth. Richard Rex thinks so. He tells us: "His (Henry VII's) accession owed less to the innate strength of his claim or of his position than to the staggering ineptitude of his predecessor..."

This must seem a very odd thing for a self-confessed Ricardian (well, sort of Ricardian - I'm not "arguing" for or against anyone - I just find the people interesting) to point out, but Richard after all was a failure: he ended up, naked and hands bound, thrown into a shallow grave in Leicester, whereas Henry VII lies in a glorious tomb in Westminster Abbey. Yet who was the better (whatever "better" means) man? I'm sure I don't know for sure - does anyone?

Quote :

And what is morality? What is being "good"?

I agree - two mutually exclusive concepts in politics, where "good" is as often applied to the individual's political acumen as it is to his or her actual benefit to the rest of society. Accidental altruism is the order of the day for politicians, despite the reputation for intent they would wish to engender when it occurs.

Richard, like a lot of politicians, was in some ways "good" for society as a whole in that he fast-tracked some reform measures into actual law that benefited more people than it inconvenienced. However his motive for being "good" in that sense was enveloped completely within his main desire and motive for almost all that he did in public life - to be "good" at securing power for himself. The same motive could just as easily lead him to behaving in a way very destructive to others around him - and the two lads in the tower would appear to fit that bill.

By the same token Henry Tudor's reign-long unwillingness to legislate (except for attainders) has been recognised as a contributing factor to the substantial growth of the economy under his rule - a tide that lifted all boats and was therefore regarded with favour by everyone. However his motive in pursuing that policy was equally self-centered, and the effect of Tudor on others around him was also famously destructive, especially for those who he considered were against him (quite a few). The two lads in the tower fit that bill too.

You posted, Temp, while I was writing this - yet I think it provides my answer to which of these men might be "better" than the other. I regard them as having been equally dangerous - both had the potential to destroy the stability and wealth of the kingdom they coveted in pursuit of acquiring and retaining it. In a time when there were far less built-in checks and balances to mitigate their worst effects it was simply luck that allowed benefit to be accrued to others outside their own close circles of support. Henry's own luck proved to be enduring too - but this has no bearing whatsoever on an evaluation of the two men's respective nature or worth.

Quote :

Well, I think what nordmann, Catters and AR are saying is that it's about time we spotted the whole crew of 'em for "what they were".

Sort of. But I'm not interested in nebulous terms such as "good" and "evil" - mainly because I believe that neither term has much more than a subjective meaning.

What I find intensely annoying here - and Nordmann has touched on the same point - is this borderline hero worship of RIII and a corresponding inability to view anything he did or stood for as anything other than praiseworthy when measured against 21st century British moral values.

It isn't just kings, of course - people (especially young people) hero worship rock stars, football players and so on. It used to be Che Guevara, Lenin and Clive of India. Now it's Madonna, Beckham and Will I Am. Same shit, different decade. But with RIII, devotees use the language of history to attempt to hide the fact that they are just doe-eyed fanboys (and girls) by seeking to pretend that their admiration for their hero is somehow more valid and more justifiable than, for example, Mrs Rheged's first crush on Ian Ogilvie as The Saint. It is this crass reinvention masquerading as genuine historical enquiry which I find annoying.

Quote :

It could be argued that Richard of Gloucester, when it came to Machiavellian realpolitik, was pretty useless, completely out of his depth. Richard Rex thinks so. He tells us: "His (Henry VII's) accession owed less to the innate strength of his claim or of his position than to the staggering ineptitude of his predecessor..."

So what? This summarises as "Dicky and 'Enners were both selfish, power-hungry aristos but 'Enners was better at it". And the quote you give implies that the writer is still wedded to this curious notion that any one individual's claim to the throne can be innately stronger than anyone else's.

Quote :

but Richard after all was a failure: he ended up, naked and hands bound, thrown into a shallow grave in Leicester, whereas Henry VII lies in a glorious tomb in Westminster Abbey. Yet who was the better (whatever "better" means) man? I'm sure I don't know for sure - does anyone?

So we should feel sorry for Richard? Angry with Henry? Does it matter who was the better man (assuming we can even agree on how these thngs can be measured and can also agree about where each of them gets placed on that scale). They were both playing the same game. The winner gets the tomb in Westminster Abbey. The loser gets shoved in a hole in the East Midlands. Do we feel that the Arsenal have been poorly treated if they come second in the League in any given year and miss out on the silverware by one point? Do we agonise about whether the dangling divas of the Red Scum really are better people in any objective sense than the dangling divas of the Woolwich Arsenal? No. It's about the game and the game alone and we let the result speak for itself.

Regards,

AR

Arwe Rheged wrote:

But I'm not interested in nebulous terms such as "good" and "evil" ...

Who is, these days?

Arwe Rheged wrote:

But with RIII, devotees use the language of history to attempt to hide the fact that they are just doe-eyed fanboys (and girls) by seeking to pretend that their admiration for their hero is somehow more valid and more justifiable than, for example, Mrs Rheged's first crush on Ian Ogilvie as The Saint. It is this crass reinvention masquerading as genuine historical enquiry which I find annoying.

AR! What a cruel thing to say! I'm beginning to think you are as beastly-horrid as Catigern. If Paul Murray Kendall could have his little fantasies about Richard III, why shouldn't we harmless old ladies too? See what you've made me do - I'm going to post another picture of dreamboat Richard Armitage as our Richard - and just when I was trying so very hard to be serious and scholarly and impress you all with my Machiavelli quotes.



Isn't he absolutely gorgeous?

Arwe Rheged wrote:

And the quote you give implies that the writer is still wedded to this curious notion that any one individual's claim to the throne can be innately stronger than anyone else's.

I rather think Richard Rex (isn't that a great name for an historian?) is too intelligent for that.

Arwe Rheged wrote:

Do we feel that the Arsenal have been poorly treated if they come second in the League in any given year and miss out on the silverware by one point?

An interesting and controversial point. I shall reply after I have had time to consult with those better qualified than I to comment - but in my limited experience with Arsenal fans they *always* feel upset about something. They're a cantankerous lot.

We might feel that Arsenal had been badly treated if they were then subjected to endless discussion about how bad they were and how deserving/undeserving of all this attention. (Though having had some experience of sports reporting in the UK, some of which - Simon Barnes for instance - is superb, but most of which is rather over-the-top, I think they will get this anyway.)

There is a slight tendency in some of the above comments to suggest that all the rulers of the past were identical in their (selfish) characters. I don't think this can be so, any more than it is of politicians nowadays. Some are better than others, or at least behave better than others. Which ones the public feel are better is probably wrapped up in their public image, but even apart from that, presumably some are more/less self-absorbed, genuine, community-minded, arrogant, integritous (why isn't there an adjective from integrity - I frequently find this a lack in our language?), etc than others.

Caro wrote:

We might feel that Arsenal had been badly treated if they were then subjected to endless discussion about how bad they were and how deserving/undeserving of all this attention.

Yes, some interesting comments from Arsene Wenger here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/7712255.stm

Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger feels his side are being treated unfairly by referees after seeing the Gunners fail to win their third successive game...

"The brave one is the guy who tries to play football. Why should I regret that? I maintain that strongly. It is not bitterness after a defeat.

Sometimes in England we feel 'he didn't fancy that'. Of course we didn't fancy that because that is not football. Of course we are ready to battle. But it depends what you mean by battle."

Who was that French footballer who appeared in Elizabeth as the French ambassador? The one who talked about sardines? I suppose football and history are very similar.

Hunchbacks in football are rare.

Now don't you start, nordmann.


It was Eric Cantona, of course. Here he is as Paul de Foix.

Paul de Foix - showed great promise at under-21 level but never really fulfilled his potential after a disastrous move to the English league. Ended up with FC Roma where he was affectionately known as "The Bish".

Best remembered for his spectacular own goal while playing with the Duke of Anjou in a so-called "friendly match" in London. The match was called off in the end.

Nil satis nisi optimum.

Who's the fat bloke in the number 8 shirt?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/feb/18/britishidentity.arts

Dr Hayward said: "It is quite surprising that Henry VIII ordered a pair of football boots because football was not a game associated with the royalty. According to contemporary writer Sir Thomas Elyot it was a game of beastly fury and extreme violence, so it was not for gentlemen."

Beastly fury and extreme violence, eh? Mmm, as Priscilla would say.

Quote :

We might feel that Arsenal had been badly treated if they were then subjected to endless discussion about how bad they were and how deserving/undeserving of all this attention.

We might also feel that Arsenal apologists, commenting more than 500 years after the event and seeking on the one hand to extol Arsenal as the greatest team ever to walk the earth (not least because in between winning matches, their players were engaged in unusually prodigious amounts of charity work and helping old ladies across the road) whilst on the other of accusing Manchester United and their shadowy confidantes in the FA of falsifiyng records, besmirching the noble Gunners and getting everyone to hate them through the medium of rude football chants were perhaps getting a teensy bit over excited and were perhaps not being entirely balanced in their views.

Quote :

There is a slight tendency in some of the above comments to suggest that all the rulers of the past were identical in their (selfish) characters. I don't think this can be so, any more than it is of politicians nowadays.

True enough, but to go to the other end of the scale and pick one out to be held up as little short of a living saint is equally disingenuous. Dickie et al were playing an all or nothing power game where nice chaps had the deck stacked against them.

Regards,

AR

Well, that's all very true. Quite some time ferval wondered why people could still get het up over Richard III and I feel the same. My son would say that's because I don't care about anything, but that's not quite right; but if I were to care about unfairness it would be for someone still alive and suffering. I have some sympathy with a society wanting to set the record straight, but despite what Minette claims, they've done that now, so why not switch to Macbeth or someone else equally or even more deserving. Or some of the people fretting their life away unfairly imprisoned in prison right now.

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