Another way understand the “sources” on Richard III

posted for super blue

 

As many of you know, the Daily Express (inter alia) has printed a lot of unfounded rumours about the 1997 death of the Princess of Wales. We can put them in a proper context, of course.

 

Now suppose that, in five hundred years time, reputable historians quote these articles copiously and refer to them as “primary sources” that must be true unless they can be disproven. The parallel with Richard is uncanny – in fact the Express is more contemporaneous to Paris 1997 than most “Tudor” “sources” are to his reign (More in particular).

1 comment

  1. Excellent point. One thing that rarely gets mentioned is that any “source” which is based on human observation (even so-called “eyewitness accounts”) is quite susceptible to bias or inadvertent mistake, in the more innocent situations, or outright speculation or malice, in less innocent situations. The bones of a skeleton speak more eloquently – and truthfully -than any contemporaneous letter. Bones cannot lie (forgive the pun).

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.