I am very impressed with this gentlemans speech. Calling on historians and translators to dig further into source records and not to rely on what was formerly written and understood about this period of English history. Bravo Mr Skidmore.
That beautiful little White Boar was an incredible find. I’m not religious but it was almost like Richard was calling to be found. So happy to hear from this lovely man. Keep politics out of it - he’s a fine young man.
I was impressed with Chris Skidmore's speech in how neatly he praised: (1) the unknown and waiting documents that needed to be discovered and/or translated, (2) the humble origins of Owen Tudor who - with no genuine connection to the English royal line except by an ancestor marrying the French widow of Henry V - became king and whose admirers "suddenly' began praising him for his favor (when they previously had been devoted to RIII), and (3) all those who would want to study the actual evidence of Richard's excellent life. There were many who preferred the future Henry VII because they "felt" he would be a better king, meaning they might gain properties that RIII had given to people who had supported him, and in effect, had served England. History does not reveal Henry VII to be a better king. He never even had the courage to lift a sword and go into the battle at Bosworth Field, which gave him the crown. He sat and watched while his mercenaries from France fought the English and eventually slaughtered a far better king of the blood. John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and 3rd son of King Edward III, committed bigamy with his mistress, Katherine Swynford while his wife was alive. As a result, all the Gaunt children were barred from ever inheriting the throne of England, even though they eventually were legitimized. Margaret Beaufort, the great granddaughter of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford, therefore her offspring were barred from the throne. This was of no matter to her because she wanted her son on the throne, even by conquering it. Henry VII, married Elizabeth of York, yet never seemed to understand he continued the Plantagenet for two more generations. Edward the Fourth's daughter, Elizabeth of York, gave birth to the future Henry VIII, and he was the father of King Edward VI, Queens Mary and Elizabeth, and Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset; he was a healthy baby in 1519 to Henry's VIII's longtime mistress, Elizabeth Blount. Fitzroy died in 1536, leaving his father to grieve his loss for many years, if not the rest of his life. It was quite interesting how Mr. Skidmore dismissed people such as Harold Walpole, Josephine Tey, and numerous others as unfounded in their beliefs and comments. This is fascinating since Walpole and Tey listed original sources for each example they use in their writings, rather than talking without evidence. These are the same sources used by historians, not fiction they created. To see how unbiased, he is in his research, just read his latest biography on Richard III that was published this year. Mr. Skidmore proves that he is a pro-Tudor historian who disparages any positives said or shown about RIII. His own words will prove the point. Being a Ricardian by club affiliation does not make him or anyone pro-Richard, because I was member of a regional club where at least half of the members faithfully supported Henry VII. They celebrated Bosworth Field and were happy RIII lost. While I believe in reading the information of other people present, I only tend to believe a fact has merit based on evidence, and certainly not belief that William Shakespeare was a bona fide historian.
Would an 'obviously' bad king set up a chapel to commemorate and honour the Yorkist dead at the Battle of Towton, otherwise lost to history but discovered by archaeologists? I don't think so. Furthermore, l couldn't see another medieval counterpart, King John, who was notoriously a bad king doing such a principled thing.
@@daveb3809 Thank you for writing. The part you listed above was directed at Henry VII, and not a Richard III. I lam sorry that I left off that vital antecedent from my comments. As for RIII, I have been an undiluted fan of his since reading 'The Daughter of Time' at fourteen, the year our parents bought us an new, 24-volume Encyclopedia Britannica with two, very thick, half-portions of a two volume dictionary. Reading English history has always been continually interesting for me. I believe that John Lackland was misunderstood, yet he was far better than Richard. He is certainly one of the four of five most maligned kings in that countries history. So much sadness. I appreciate you taking time to share your thoughts with me.
@Sherril Smith. Thank you your reply. I do apologise for not reading the earlier part of your comment but mostly noted the last segment. It does make a lot more sense that it referred to Henry Tudor and not Richard III. It's nice to know you are a fan of Richard. I've also read 'The Daughter of Time' which strongly induced me to write my own, another historical novel investigation type based on Tey's idea although the protagonist talks over the historical research in pubs with a friend and in homes not in a hospital ward. It defends Richard to the hilt. I'm busy re-writing the manuscript and updating the cover. It will be on a 99 cents promotion shortly. If you are interested in getting a copy. I will let you know the title of the book and where to get it once the updated details go through. It does contain strong language here and there which is used to damn the misinformation about Richard that has existed down the centuries. One thing l'm curious to know is why you think John was a better king than Richard?
I wondered about the comment where Chris Skidmore refers to editing of lesser known documents from the time of Richard iii. Transcribing, or translating - yes. But editing implies that not all of the text would be available, and therefore could be manipulated in many ways. I also wondered about the contemporary accounts Chris names - yes they were positive before Richards death, and negative afterwards - but if the change in tone can be prescribed to a change in monarch, then they are as dubious before King Richards death as they were after. I would say the only comtemporay accounts we can place more trust in, are people who are not supporters of either Richard iii or Henry vii, and who were not at risk from either monarch at the time of writing. If an author changes his account to please the new monarch, could he not be equally biased when writing during the previous monarchs rule? I was always fascinated by the Tudors as a child, probably because we were taught about them at primary school, Richard was only ever mentioned in connection with his demise. As an adult I came late to the history of the Plantaganets, and have retained, what I would call,a heathy sceptisism about the events. I would say that I am neither pro Tudor or anti Ricardian, and realise that we will never know the full truth of this era of history, and that we all have bias, even if it is subconcious!
I am very impressed with this gentlemans speech. Calling on historians and translators to dig further into source records and not to rely on what was formerly written and understood about this period of English history. Bravo Mr Skidmore.
That beautiful little White Boar was an incredible find. I’m not religious but it was almost like Richard was calling to be found. So happy to hear from this lovely man. Keep politics out of it - he’s a fine young man.
I was impressed with Chris Skidmore's speech in how neatly he praised: (1) the unknown and waiting documents that needed to be discovered and/or translated, (2) the humble origins of Owen Tudor who - with no genuine connection to the English royal line except by an ancestor marrying the French widow of Henry V - became king and whose admirers "suddenly' began praising him for his favor (when they previously had been devoted to RIII), and (3) all those who would want to study the actual evidence of Richard's excellent life. There were many who preferred the future Henry VII because they "felt" he would be a better king, meaning they might gain properties that RIII had given to people who had supported him, and in effect, had served England. History does not reveal Henry VII to be a better king. He never even had the courage to lift a sword and go into the battle at Bosworth Field, which gave him the crown. He sat and watched while his mercenaries from France fought the English and eventually slaughtered a far better king of the blood.
John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and 3rd son of King Edward III, committed bigamy with his mistress, Katherine Swynford while his wife was alive. As a result, all the Gaunt children were barred from ever inheriting the throne of England, even though they eventually were legitimized. Margaret Beaufort, the great granddaughter of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford, therefore her offspring were barred from the throne. This was of no matter to her because she wanted her son on the throne, even by conquering it. Henry VII, married Elizabeth of York, yet never seemed to understand he continued the Plantagenet for two more generations. Edward the Fourth's daughter, Elizabeth of York, gave birth to the future Henry VIII, and he was the father of King Edward VI, Queens Mary and Elizabeth, and Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset; he was a healthy baby in 1519 to Henry's VIII's longtime mistress, Elizabeth Blount. Fitzroy died in 1536, leaving his father to grieve his loss for many years, if not the rest of his life.
It was quite interesting how Mr. Skidmore dismissed people such as Harold Walpole, Josephine Tey, and numerous others as unfounded in their beliefs and comments. This is fascinating since Walpole and Tey listed original sources for each example they use in their writings, rather than talking without evidence. These are the same sources used by historians, not fiction they created. To see how unbiased, he is in his research, just read his latest biography on Richard III that was published this year. Mr. Skidmore proves that he is a pro-Tudor historian who disparages any positives said or shown about RIII. His own words will prove the point.
Being a Ricardian by club affiliation does not make him or anyone pro-Richard, because I was member of a regional club where at least half of the members faithfully supported Henry VII. They celebrated Bosworth Field and were happy RIII lost. While I believe in reading the information of other people present, I only tend to believe a fact has merit based on evidence, and certainly not belief that William Shakespeare was a bona fide historian.
Would an 'obviously' bad king set up a chapel to commemorate and honour the Yorkist dead at the Battle of Towton, otherwise lost to history but discovered by archaeologists? I don't think so. Furthermore, l couldn't see another medieval counterpart, King John, who was notoriously a bad king doing such a principled thing.
@@daveb3809 Thank you for writing. The part you listed above was directed at Henry VII, and not a Richard III. I lam sorry that I left off that vital antecedent from my comments. As for RIII, I have been an undiluted fan of his since reading 'The Daughter of Time' at fourteen, the year our parents bought us an new, 24-volume Encyclopedia Britannica with two, very thick, half-portions of a two volume dictionary. Reading English history has always been continually interesting for me. I believe that John Lackland was misunderstood, yet he was far better than Richard. He is certainly one of the four of five most maligned kings in that countries history. So much sadness. I appreciate you taking time to share your thoughts with me.
@Sherril Smith. Thank you your reply. I do apologise for not reading the earlier part of your comment but mostly noted the last segment. It does make a lot more sense that it referred to Henry Tudor and not Richard III.
It's nice to know you are a fan of Richard. I've also read 'The Daughter of Time' which strongly induced me to write my own, another historical novel investigation type based on Tey's idea although the protagonist talks over the historical research in pubs with a friend and in homes not in a hospital ward.
It defends Richard to the hilt. I'm busy re-writing the manuscript and updating the cover. It will be on a 99 cents promotion shortly. If you are interested in getting a copy. I will let you know the title of the book and where to get it once the updated details go through. It does contain strong language here and there which is used to damn the misinformation about Richard that has existed down the centuries.
One thing l'm curious to know is why you think John was a better king than Richard?
I wondered about the comment where Chris Skidmore refers to editing of lesser known documents from the time of Richard iii. Transcribing, or translating - yes. But editing implies that not all of the text would be available, and therefore could be manipulated in many ways.
I also wondered about the contemporary accounts Chris names - yes they were positive before Richards death, and negative afterwards - but if the change in tone can be prescribed to a change in monarch, then they are as dubious before King Richards death as they were after. I would say the only comtemporay accounts we can place more trust in, are people who are not supporters of either Richard iii or Henry vii, and who were not at risk from either monarch at the time of writing. If an author changes his account to please the new monarch, could he not be equally biased when writing during the previous monarchs rule?
I was always fascinated by the Tudors as a child, probably because we were taught about them at primary school, Richard was only ever mentioned in connection with his demise. As an adult I came late to the history of the Plantaganets, and have retained, what I would call,a heathy sceptisism about the events. I would say that I am neither pro Tudor or anti Ricardian, and realise that we will never know the full truth of this era of history, and that we all have bias, even if it is subconcious!