A great site

No Sense of Humour?

I think Dan Jones must have got out of bed on the wrong side the other day. In this article he accuses Ricardians, among other things, of having no sense of humour.

This very site, where humorous pieces appear on a regular basis, including some on himself (eg here), rebuts his argument, and I am sure that plenty of supporting evidence can be supplied. If he had described Ricardians as a typically-English bunch of eccentrics he might have been a little closer to the truth; though of course even that  would not cover the many Ricardians who are not English, and in some cases do not even have English as their native tongue.

I rather think it is the ‘Ten Foot Deepers’ who lack humour, as they are evidently capable of reading More’s unlikely (and possibly deliberately satirical) account of Richard’s reign without collapsing into laughter. Indeed, anyone who takes that ‘source’ seriously has obviously had a complete sense of humour by-pass.

Their sincerely-held naivety is in fact rather touching. Perhaps they also believe that an elephant pushes the sun up a hill each morning.


Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “No Sense of Humour?

  1. Eva Burian on said:

    It speaks volumes about the state of affairs that a post like this doesn’t attract comments. I will really stop posting here,because I struggle with a tablet,and its system sometimes changes what I type to something it ‘thinks’that it recognizes,and on Word press once it goes ‘on air’ there see ms to be no way of correcting, only in another post.Bad system.
    But.I always say that my specialized subject became grotesque drama,because I had a sense of sarcastic humour.Ionesco,playwright of the absurd wrote somewhere that the world is so wicked,so bad that you can’t help roaring with laughter just not to cry.
    This is what the Ricardian subject and its literary connections are about.I am very glad,but really,absolutely glad,that our efforts,those of the writers like me who have bee n spreading the light about Shakespeare,is bringing fruits.Even if it means that so e people take me for the stupid one who doesn’t understand that the play Richard iii is not portraying Richard.Matt Lewis,myself and several authors before us have been trying for a long time to make the world realize this .But it is still not as generally accepted as it should be.And this is only the first step.There is much more in the subject.Shakespeare was a grotesque playwright,More was probably a grotesque prose writer,and their works cry out against Tudor lies.Huge possibilities for Ricardians to research.


  2. Pingback: Not again: “Britain’s bloody Crown” (3) | murreyandblue

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.

%d bloggers like this: