Richard III remains confirmed

Chit-chat, current events
User avatar
Sue Sue Applegate
Administrator
Posts: 3404
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 8:47 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by Sue Sue Applegate »

Allison, what is your opinion of Tudor biographer Allison Weir? I have read several of her books and find her attention to detail so fascinating. She also has a tour company, and I wanted to go on her recent Gloriana tour in September, but, alas and alack, I didn't have $8,000 in change lying around the house.

Is there a general consensus about her professionalism and scholarly research?
Here's a link to her websites:
http://www.alisonweir.org.uk/index.asp
http:// www.alisonweirtours.com
Blog: http://suesueapplegate.wordpress.com/
Twitter:@suesueapplegate
TCM Message Boards: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/ ... ue-sue-ii/
Sue Sue : https://www.facebook.com/groups/611323215621862/
Thelma Ritter: Hollywood's Favorite New Yorker, University Press of Mississippi-2023
Avatar: Ginger Rogers, The Major and The Minor
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by RedRiver »

When I was a kid, I knew people who liked Thomas B. Costain's books. Granted they were young people, my brother and sister. But they enjoyed the books, all the same.
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by charliechaplinfan »

I bought my dad some Alison Weir books for Christmas, he's hooked. I've read Philippa Gregory but not yet Alison Weir although I have her boks here. I she's a very well respected writer of historical fiction, I think it's a fun way to learn history if you add a pinch of salt for artistic licence, the bulk of what happened will be true, the time frame might be skewed, when I read these books I tend to read wikipedia afterwards to check what I don't know.

There is a great book about Katherine Swynford by Anya Seton, it was written about 40 years ago but made it into the top 100 books voted in 2000, I couldn't put it down, John of Gaunt is one of the more colourful characters of this time period, quite Machievellian by some accounts. Alison Weir has written a book about her too. There are also two great books that have both won the Booker Prize, these are about Thomas Cromwell called Wolf Hall and Bring Back the Bodies, I've read the first one, it's very good and deals with all his machinations and double dealing.

Mary-kate have you ever watched David Starkey? I've enjoyed all the programmes he made on the Tudors and on the monarchy, his books are quite interesting too but he does have a slight bias.

The thing with reading what historians tell us is they filter the facts for us. It was highlighted by this programme because for years those who have supported Richard III have been convinced he wasn't hunchbacked by using their sources.

Both links were slight but although I'm not a flag waver for either of the Henry's, Henry VII was the right man at the right time and he did marry a Princess of York.

I could talk history all day, I don't know what they learn at school, I know my primary age kids do projects on the Tudors, Egyptians, the Titanic, the Second world War which means they print lots of info from the computer, they don't teach history like we used to learn ie in order.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Maricatrin
Posts: 248
Joined: January 16th, 2012, 1:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by Maricatrin »

charliechaplinfan wrote:Mary-kate have you ever watched David Starkey? I've enjoyed all the programmes he made on the Tudors and on the monarchy, his books are quite interesting too but he does have a slight bias.


I'm familiar with the name, but I don't tend to watch a lot of modern documentaries. To me, they often seem heavy-handed, simplistic, and likely to impose a modern sensibility on everything. By your recommendation of Starkey, I assume he must rise above these pitfalls. I'd guess that the American produced documentaries on British history commit the worst of these faults (it's okay, I'm an American!)
charliechaplinfan wrote:The thing with reading what historians tell us is they filter the facts for us. It was highlighted by this programme because for years those who have supported Richard III have been convinced he wasn't hunchbacked by using their sources.


I think those who have guessed that one of his shoulders was simply higher than the other are probably correct.
charliechaplinfan wrote:Both links were slight but although I'm not a flag waver for either of the Henry's, Henry VII was the right man at the right time and he did marry a Princess of York.


The same lack of fan sentiments here. But by the evidence and circumstances, I tend to believe that Richard was the one who had the two little princes murdered. That all the name blackening wasn't entirely an after effect of Henry's propaganda would be suggested in part by Sir Thomas More's writings. He had had contact with many people who were alive during Richard's reign, and was hardly the sort of man one could call a shill for the Tudor's.
charliechaplinfan wrote:I could talk history all day, I don't know what they learn at school, I know my primary age kids do projects on the Tudors, Egyptians, the Titanic, the Second world War which means they print lots of info from the computer, they don't teach history like we used to learn ie in order.
The trouble with getting all one's information from the internet (and I suspect that this fact drives a good teacher crazy) is that so much out there is flat out inaccurate. A lot of books are in error too, but at least the person giving the information is accountable and presumably did some fact checking in order to get it published.
https://www.youtube.com/c/MaricatrinsMusicVideos
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by JackFavell »

We don't get any history at all now. It's terrible. They are so obsessed with getting competitive scores in math and science that history is almost completely gone. Apparently in social studies they learn some geography, and then some history of the region they are studying (Mesopotamia, Africa) as well as the weather patterns and what topography the regions have...but nothing as far as American History or a broad view of World History. Maybe in high school they'll get a smattering of it? I hope...

I have a few older history books, Antonia Fraser and Mary Renault, plus I have my mothers Mary Renault novels. I prefer Fraser's history books, they have some arching themes that resonate with me. Both Fraser and Renault did historical fiction as well as actual histories. For American history, Doris Kearns Goodwin is tops with me.

So are Gregory and Weir writing actual histories or is it all historical fiction? My mom was a big Georgette Heyer fan, I remember her telling me several of the stories and they wre a hoot!
User avatar
Sue Sue Applegate
Administrator
Posts: 3404
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 8:47 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by Sue Sue Applegate »

Jackie, Phillipa Gregory is historical fiction, and Alison Weir is nonfiction, and I love both of their book series!

Thanks for all your comments, Allison! I am a prolific reader of English history! And I enjoyed all of Gregory's books that I've read. I also enjoy Starkey's Tudor series, but it did have a slant.
Blog: http://suesueapplegate.wordpress.com/
Twitter:@suesueapplegate
TCM Message Boards: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/ ... ue-sue-ii/
Sue Sue : https://www.facebook.com/groups/611323215621862/
Thelma Ritter: Hollywood's Favorite New Yorker, University Press of Mississippi-2023
Avatar: Ginger Rogers, The Major and The Minor
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by RedRiver »

One of our presidents said knowledge of history is of the utmost importance. You have to know where you've been in order to know where you're going. I don't remember which one that was.
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by JackFavell »

I agree with him whoever he was.
Maricatrin
Posts: 248
Joined: January 16th, 2012, 1:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by Maricatrin »

JackFavell wrote:We don't get any history at all now. It's terrible. They are so obsessed with getting competitive scores in math and science that history is almost completely gone.
So true. :(
RedRiver wrote:One of our presidents said knowledge of history is of the utmost importance. You have to know where you've been in order to know where you're going. I don't remember which one that was.
Hmm, I can't either. But speaking of quotes about history, here's a favorite of mine:
History is not a work of philosophy, it is a painting; it is necessary to combine narration with the representation of the subject, that is, it is necessary simultaneously to design and to paint; it is necessary to give to men the language and the sentiments of their times, not to regard the past in the light of our own opinion.
Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand
Historical novels can be a very enjoyable way to wet an interest in history. He's of an older vintage than any author mentioned here so far, but Sir Walter Scott is an excellent author (particularly when dealing with Scottish history.)

My grandmother really enjoyed Ellis Peters' mysteries set during the time of the "Anarchy". Regarding historical based mysteries, John Julius Norwich (author of Shakespeare's Kings, which I've already referenced) calls Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time "brilliant", even though he doesn't subscribe to the pro-Richard III argument.
https://www.youtube.com/c/MaricatrinsMusicVideos
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by JackFavell »

That's the book that really got me interested in Richard in the first place. Well, probably like everyone else here.
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by charliechaplinfan »

I've read Antonia Fraser, I intend to get around to ALison Weir, looking at her reviews on Amazon she's very highly thought about, I've read so many reviews on historical books and many have commented 'don't read this read Alison Weir instead if you want the truth'. I've never seen her as a talking head on TV documentaries though.

The David Starkey programmes are very good and very detailed, he's somewhat a controversial figure here, he says what he thinks whether it's politically correct or not. His series on the Tudors is the most detailed work I've ever come across, from memory he did a series about the monarchy and an accompanying book, if he has a bias for me it was for Elizabeth I which was the first of his programmes. His accaompanying monarchy book (which is good if anyone wants to read about how each followed on from one another, whiich pre Tudor is harder to remember) but at the end he drubs Diana Princess of Wales whilst saying how wonderful a person Charles is, so no bias there then.

Helen Castor is a good and detailed historian, her book She Wolves about 4 Queens of England prior to Henry VIII is quite extensive and interesting. Ian Mortimer is another well thought of author. Lucy Worsley an historian who is more and more on our screens, she talks more of what goes on in our grand houses. She's curator of Hampton Court amongst other palaces, lucky girl.

I'm not convinced about Richard killing the princes, I'm not saying he didn't do it or he didn't have reason to do it but there are other things that make me doubt his guilt. Their mother, after the Princes dissappearance sent her daughters to him, well daughters weren't worth the crown. There was a mention of Richard being tried by am American court and being found not guilty. Does anyone know about this? in our courts if you have a doubt you've got to find the person innocent, perhaps that's where I'm coming from, in the Scottish court there is a verdict not proven, I think that more explains my stance on Richard and it looks likely that we'll never get closer than that.

I don't understand the history teaching, I haven't seen any evidence of them being taught an overall view. We're both so history crazy that our kids know lots about it because we talk about it so much. It was my favourite subject. How do you really begin to understand mankind and the world we live in if we can't teach our history? It's a crazy world.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Maricatrin
Posts: 248
Joined: January 16th, 2012, 1:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by Maricatrin »

charliechaplinfan wrote:The David Starkey programmes are very good and very detailed, he's somewhat a controversial figure here, he says what he thinks whether it's politically correct or not.
Sounds promising. Thank you for telling me about him.
charliechaplinfan wrote:Helen Castor is a good and detailed historian, her book She Wolves about 4 Queens of England prior to Henry VIII is quite extensive and interesting. Ian Mortimer is another well thought of author. Lucy Worsley an historian who is more and more on our screens, she talks more of what goes on in our grand houses. She's curator of Hampton Court amongst other palaces, lucky girl.


I've watched part of Helen Castor's "She Wolves" documentary, and sorry to say, I didn't enjoy it. Misogyny definitely bothers me, but aggressive feminism bothers me more. To dwell so much of the unenlightened-men-hate-enlightened-woman tact seems to rob the people discussed of all their individuality. I kept thinking, please, let's leave gender behind for a little while. Of course, that was the whole thesis of the piece, that women weren't allowed to forget their sex. But to me saying that a woman can't do a certain job just because she's a woman isn't any less foolish than saying she should be allowed to do the job simply because she is a woman (yes, I do like Dorothy L. Sayers short piece "Are Women Human?", but I'm trying not to plagiarize it .)

Hampton Court curator? Lucky girl is right. How does one get a position like that, I wonder? Perhaps you should look into that? :idea:
charliechaplinfan wrote:I'm not convinced about Richard killing the princes, I'm not saying he didn't do it or he didn't have reason to do it but there are other things that make me doubt his guilt. Their mother, after the Princes dissappearance sent her daughters to him, well daughters weren't worth the crown. There was a mention of Richard being tried by am American court and being found not guilty. Does anyone know about this? in our courts if you have a doubt you've got to find the person innocent, perhaps that's where I'm coming from, in the Scottish court there is a verdict not proven, I think that more explains my stance on Richard and it looks likely that we'll never get closer than that.


Yes, we don't have time machines, so there's a limit as to what we can ever know for sure. And here is a link about the mock trial: http://www.r3.org/trial/trial2.html

I rather like that "not proven" aspect of Scots law... their legal code has an entirely different basis than England's, doesn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/c/MaricatrinsMusicVideos
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Thanks for the link for the mock trial. Not proven does sum it up, Scottish justice is quite different to ours.

It's funny I read Helen Castor's book but when it came to the series I wasn't taken with it at all, I don't know why, I'm rarely enticed to sit still long enough for anything on TV and I think it was the case here, I wasn't taken with the way it was presented and having read the book there was nothing left to learn. I liked how she concentrated on the Queens behind the throne and in these cases they were far more formidable than their husbands. Although Matilda and Eleanor of Aquataine were better known of the two I found all cases interesting. Helen Castor very different in presenting style to David Starkey, he's more theatrical.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
Sue Sue Applegate
Administrator
Posts: 3404
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 8:47 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by Sue Sue Applegate »

I am going to have to find that Helen Castor documentary. I especially enjoyed Weir's and Marion Meade's book on the life of Eleanor of Acquitane.
Blog: http://suesueapplegate.wordpress.com/
Twitter:@suesueapplegate
TCM Message Boards: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/ ... ue-sue-ii/
Sue Sue : https://www.facebook.com/groups/611323215621862/
Thelma Ritter: Hollywood's Favorite New Yorker, University Press of Mississippi-2023
Avatar: Ginger Rogers, The Major and The Minor
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Richard III remains confirmed

Post by charliechaplinfan »

I hope it's been released in America. Eleanor of Aquataine is one of my favourite historical figures. I got to see her grave when we were in France, she's buried next to Henry and her son Richard and daughter in law (John's wife) Isabella.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Post Reply