Richard III | Page 6 | Tudor Personalities | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Richard III
June 2, 2014
11:58 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
101sp_Permalink sp_Print

Sure, Olga, I’ll lead men into battle riding in my chariot like Boudicca!

OUCH!….William Shakespeare treated like PG? Now you are just being mean! Surprised Shakespeare wasn’t an historian and he never claimed to be one. That cannot be said for PG.

June 3, 2014
12:25 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
102sp_Permalink sp_Print

SWMNBN had the credentials to call herself a historian, certainly, but I think it’s a hysterical fantasical historian. No I’m being unfair think is the wrong word, she is a hysterical fantastical historian.
I still haven’t got over her certainly/maybe guilty but I like her really I do verdict yet..Don’t know why but whenever I think of that, my brain (wherever it is, doing the time warp again I expect) conjures up an image of Dick Emery’s Mandi as in “Ooh you are awful, but I like you” before pushing the person over or into a hedge or something and walking off.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 3, 2014
4:45 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If I was being mean I would have said I treat him like Hilary Mantel Sharon Laugh I don’t mind PG. With that said I am not fond of Shakespeare’s kings, I prefer his purely fictional plays – and I am a big fan of those.

As far as I know he actually researched his plays though. I was going to start buying some of the Globe Theatre plays through the Digital Theatre app as I was curious about seeing Henry VIII but Neil told me I would die of boredom Laugh

Bo you have lost me in that second paragraph, seriously. What verdict???

June 3, 2014
5:28 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
104sp_Permalink sp_Print

Ha! Ha! You are just pushing that envelope, Olga! Wink Don’t get me started on Mantel.
Shakespeare did research his kings. Much of what he wrote about them came directly from the history books. Except Richard’s shape. That was purely Shakespeare. I figure people of that time really disliked Richard and found it amusing that Shakespeare would deal with Richard as he did. And if he did base the character on Cecil, I think that audience would get it.

June 3, 2014
9:54 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
105sp_Permalink sp_Print

LOL Olga it was to do with a radio interview that SWMNBN did. I believe it was Maggie who posted the interview, in it she said that Anne was certainly maybe guilty or some such twaddle.

I am forced to somewhat reluctantly agree that her hysterical historical novels are readable if you haven’t got anything more substantial to read. Save for the Virgin Lover which of course the chipmunks made good use of. I’m reading the Boleyn Inheritence at the moment and the White Princess is all ready lined up. Well I’ve got to give my brain a little rest as I’ve been giving it a good old bashing these last few months, it’s the only way I can stop the little bugger from escaping.. When it does bugger off completely, be afraid be VERY afraid. Lock all your doors and windows, block up any keyholes and cracks and hide. And whatever you do, don’t for Gawd’s sake feed it.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 3, 2014
10:49 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
106sp_Permalink sp_Print

if anyone is interested, the BBC have said that they will be filming Hollow Crown II, the sequel to the 2012 series of Shakespeares Richard II, Henry IV pt 1&2, and Henry V – HCII is due out (ish) in 2016 and it will be the three parts of Henry VI, and Richard III.

Benedict Cumberbatch is to play bad Dick III – honestly, playing Smaug, Sauron and now Richard III, that boy will get typecast…

if you’ve not seen Hollow Crown i really recommend it – i thought the Richard II and Henry IV films were brilliant, though i’ll admit to being underwhelmed by the Henry V film, i like Tom Hiddleston, but the film didn’t have the energy of the Ken Branagh’s 1989 film, and it looked a bit threadbare in places. battles with perhaps 30,000 participants take lots of extras to do convincingly, and its clear the budget had been spent by that point.

looking forward to HCII though, its not history, but its very entertaining.

June 4, 2014
12:29 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I thought Richard II was magnificent Bob. I actually have the Henry V to watch as well but haven’t gotten around to it yet.

Oh that verdict Bo. Yes PG has convinced herself. But she tries to remain slightly ambiguous in the books, Mary’s daughter Catherine does say Anne was not guilty in the next book. The main difference between Mantel and PG is that PG has at least tried to give Anne a motive for doing it, even if it is completely dodgy.

Sharon I am convinced he based it on Cecil. Everyone would have known Richard didn’t have a hunchback, although I agree perhaps they thought it was just a good joke.

June 4, 2014
10:24 am
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
108sp_Permalink sp_Print

Olga said …although I agree perhaps they thought it was just a good joke.

i think one of the reasons Richard III was so demonised by later historians and playrights was because he, unlike the others, was a safe target – you could pour all your disatisfaction about whichever monarch happened to be on the throne onto Richards head and while the audience might get the references with a nod and a wink, you could happily stand in from of the judge and say ‘oh no, its all about that devil Richard III’.

in the Tudor period it would be difficult to be overly rude about Edward IV because he’s Henry VIII’s Grandfather, and Elizabeth I’s great-Grandfather, and Henry VII’s (dead) father in law, and by the time of the Stuarts living memory is long gone, and all thats left is what was written by people who weren’t stupid enough to say what a nice bloke RIII was..

June 7, 2014
4:30 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
109sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bob the Builder said

Olga said …although I agree perhaps they thought it was just a good joke.

i think one of the reasons Richard III was so demonised by later historians and playrights was because he, unlike the others, was a safe target – you could pour all your disatisfaction about whichever monarch happened to be on the throne onto Richards head and while the audience might get the references with a nod and a wink, you could happily stand in from of the judge and say ‘oh no, its all about that devil Richard III’.

in the Tudor period it would be difficult to be overly rude about Edward IV because he’s Henry VIII’s Grandfather, and Elizabeth I’s great-Grandfather, and Henry VII’s (dead) father in law, and by the time of the Stuarts living memory is long gone, and all thats left is what was written by people who weren’t stupid enough to say what a nice bloke RIII was..

Exactly. In the Tudor period these plays were censored. Nothing got on the stage without having been checked out by the Lord Chamberlain’s office. Dissing the king or queen directly was not allowed. Richard was a safe and easy target.

June 7, 2014
4:41 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
110sp_Permalink sp_Print

It is interesting that the first real defence of Richard III came just a few years after the Tudors had given way to the Stuarts.

June 8, 2014
12:21 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
111sp_Permalink sp_Print

Which one was that Jasmine?

June 8, 2014
12:37 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
112sp_Permalink sp_Print

The one written by Sir George Buck (1560-1622) I’m not sure when he wrote it but it was not published until 1646, some years after his death –

June 9, 2014
6:05 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
113sp_Permalink sp_Print

Yes by his rotten nephew. Poor old Margaret Beaufort though, Buck is the first one to accuse her of having a hand in the Prince’s disappearing.

June 9, 2014
6:46 am
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
114sp_Permalink sp_Print

I would like to get the annotated copy of Buck that Arthur Kincaid produced, but I see it is one of the out-of-print Ricardian books now changing hands for megabucks. I have the free Kindle version, but that’s the one his nephew ‘edited’.

June 9, 2014
9:27 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
115sp_Permalink sp_Print

Yes last I checked it was at least $100, I want one too. It was in Alison Weir’s book on EoY that she mentioned Kincaid was the culprit in reconstructing the famous letter again.
From what I have been told Kincaid managed to track all but two or three of his sources. But John of Gloucester is still up in the air.

June 9, 2014
9:48 am
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
116sp_Permalink sp_Print

I would love to know what happened to John of Gloucester – another young man who vanishes completely from history…….

June 9, 2014
1:23 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
117sp_Permalink sp_Print

Jasmine are you talking about, George 1V son John? If it is, it is perhaps one of the saddest stories I’ve even read. There was a television serial called the Lost Prince. It made me bawl my eyes out at the end, as it seemed to me as if both Queen Mary and King George just forgot he even existed. He was simply buried away in a forgotten churchyard, and never mentioned again. In fact I’m of the impression if it wasn’t for his nurse/governess, and her devoted attention to him even after he had died, he would have been simply unknown in the first place.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 9, 2014
1:34 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
118sp_Permalink sp_Print

No, Boleyn – I was talking about Richard III’s illegitimate son, John of Gloucester.

With regard to Prince John, the youngest son of George V and Queen Mary, the Lost Prince was a fictional account of his life. If you research him, you will find that he suffered from illnesses which meant he needed a settled, quiet environment and not the busy Buckingham Palace as a home. So it was decided to have him live at Sandringham. After The Lost Prince was broadcast, an elderly woman wrote to the papers saying she was the daughter of one of the estate workers and played with Prince John as a child. She said he was not forgotten – his parents and brothers and sisters visited him frequently and he was a very happy child. I have a book of early royal family photographs and there are quite a few of Prince John with his siblings.

This is a quote from Wiki, but is sourced:

“As John’s seizures intensified (Bill later wrote) “we [dared] not let him be with his brothers and sister, because it upsets them so much, with the attacks getting so bad and coming so often.”[11] Biographer Denis Judd believes that “[John]’s seclusion and ‘abnormality’ must have been disturbing to his brothers and sister”, as he had been “a friendly, outgoing little boy, much loved by his brothers and sister, a sort of mascot for the family”.[18] He spent Christmas Day 1918 with his family at Sandring­ham House but was driven back to Wood Farm at night.

On 18 January 1919, after a severe seizure, John died in his sleep at Wood Farm at 5:30 p.m.[21] Queen Mary wrote in her diary that the news was “a great shock, tho’ for the poor little boy’s restless soul, death came as a great relief. [She] broke the news to George and [they] motored down to Wood Farm. Found poor Lala very resigned but heartbroken. Little Johnnie looked very peaceful lying there.”[18]

Mary later wrote to Emily Alcock, an old friend, that “for [John] it is a great relief, as his malady was becoming worse as he grew older, & he has thus been spared much suffering. I cannot say how grateful we feel to God for having taken him in such a peaceful way, he just slept quietly into his heavenly home, no pain no struggle, just peace for the poor little troubled spirit which had been a great anxiety to us for many years, ever since he was four years old.” She went on to add that “the first break in the family circle is hard to bear, but people have been so kind & sympathetic & this has helped us much.”[22][23] George described his son’s death simply as “the greatest mercy possible”.[11]”

So you see – he was not abandoned by his family – they cared for him very much and tried to find the best living emvironment for him.

I think that film (The Lost Prince) has done a great disservice to historical truth – but we are used to that, aren’t we?

June 9, 2014
4:13 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thank you Jasmine.
From what little there seems to be on Wiki(not always a reliable source of information) It appears that Richard 3rd made him the captain of Calais in March of 1485. His mother it also appears to be unknown, but it is believed it was a lady by the name of Alice Burgh, there is also mention of a daughter called Katherine whose mother was Katherine Haute, who married the Earl of Pembroke William Herbert. It’s entirely possible that Katherine Haute was also the mother of John too.
John was removed from his post by H7 in 1485 shortly after Bosworth and was given £20 a year, by H7. Little is known of him after that date but it’s believed that he became involved in Perkin Warbeck’s rebellion and was executed in 1499 along with the hapless Earl of Warwick and Perkin Warbeck.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 9, 2014
4:21 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
120sp_Permalink sp_Print

Yes, the Wiki stuff is broadly accurate. The identities of the mother(s) of Richard’s illegitimate children is unknown. The idea that one of them was Alice Burgh is based on the fact that Richard paid her an annuity. Yet it is more than possible that she was his legitimate son’s nurse, rather than his mistress.

All the stuff about the pension is correct, but then John just vanishes. If he had been involved in the PW affair, then one might expect a record of his trial, conviction and execution – but there is nothing. It is as if he just fell off the edge of the world.

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
10 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 425948

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1683

Posts: 23040

Newest Members:

qvist been, Barmans, baba elvis, doctormorris, jameejendnd, snowline

Administrators: Claire: 959