murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the tag “Dan Jones”

Richard III And The Tudor Genealogy — RICARDIAN LOONS

It is generally acknowledged by historians that Henry Tudor, who defeated Richard III, the last Yorkist king, at Bosworth and went on to be crowned Henry VII, wasn’t the Lancastrian heir to the throne of England he claimed to be. His mother, Margaret Beaufort, was descended from John of Gaunt, the third surviving son of […]

via Richard III And The Tudor Genealogy — RICARDIAN LOONS

Advertisements

The thoughts of a prospective purchaser of Dan Jones’ The Templars….

Templars - Dan Jones

I have been asked for an opinion about Dan Jones and the Templars, and so have delved around for an impression of Jones’ thoughts on the subject. I know nothing about him, and so started from scratch, so to speak. What follows is an assessment from someone who was considering acquiring the book.

A YouTube video shows Jones talking about the Templars to an audience in a book shop. He is very entertaining, of that there is no doubt, and personable too, but I soon found myself wishing he’d get on with it rather than waffle with so many asides. Amusing at first, but then tiresome.

At the outset he had my full attention, because he spoke of how, when he was young, his father would read him ghost stories at Christmas, particularly those of M.R. James. Well, James is one of my favourites too, as are almost all masters of the gothic ghost story, so I was keen to hear what connection there could be with the Templars. Jones’ favourite James story is Oh, Whistle and I’ll Come to You, my Lad, which concerns a scholarly gentleman’s lonely holiday on the bleak East Anglian coast, and the discovery of a whistle in some Templar ruins. Unwisely, this man blows the whistle, and is then beset by a terrified/terrifying figure, animated bedsheets, monstrous noises and other awful manifestations. Spine-tingling stuff.

Jones’ question was, why did James make the Templar connection? Could the ruins not have been any ruins? But no, he introduced the Templars, who have always had a powerful attraction for us all. Who were they? Where did they come from? Why do they still exert such a draw? What happened to them? Were they good? Or wicked? Even supernatural? And fleeting mention was made of the other Dan, Brown, and the Da Vinci Code.

So far so good. When Jones was speaking, I was there with him, but soon after that something about his delivery began to dull my interest.

The Knights Templars were created to protect Christian pilgrims going to the Holy Land, and were the crack troops—the SAS—of their time. They started as a very poor order, but ended up astonishingly rich. Did they find the treasure of Solomon? Or another vast hoard? Whatever, they fell from grace, and the French king, Phillip IV, had them tortured, and burned their last Grand Master (Jacques de Molay) today in 1314, although Edward II reacted differently.

Dan Jones’ book about the Templars has done remarkably well, and there are a lot of reviews at Amazon. Alas, they are almost all one-liners, which do not really give a prospective buyer much of an idea about a book that is clearly to the liking of the general public. So too were his previous works, about The Plantagenets, the Magna Carta and so on. So I can see why this one is following suit.

On the other hand, I took a “Look Inside” at Amazon. It happened to be the Kindle edition. The font, while a reasonable size, was rather close-packed, and some of the paragraphs very long, which will not help concentration. I could not see where one page ended and the next began, but that might just be my ineptitude. The eye is inclined to wander when there are no breaks in paragraphs, and when font is awkward for one reason or another. When the eye wanders, so too does the attention. That is my opinion, anyway. Here is an (admittedly reduced) extract, but it does show what I mean about the text and the legibility of the longer paragraphs. This legibility is of concern to many readers, especially the senior ones – like me! This sort of thing would require reading in timely instalments, if you know what I mean. Youngsters might do it all in one sitting! Yes, you can enlarge in Kindle, but not in an actual book.

excerpt Templars

So I will not be acquiring the book, but have no real out-and-out reason for making this decision. Jones’ actual writing and work might be excellent, and indeed probably are, but there is just something that deters me. Well, we’re all different, and I am clearly in the tiny minority when it comes to Dan Jones. So it’s bon appetit to all those who will be adding it to their bookshelf.

 

Playwrights and persistent historical myths

Today in 1564, Christopher Marlowe (right) was baptised in Canterbury.

One of the plays for which he is most famous is

 

 

 

Edward II (left), traditionally dated a year before his own 1593 death. In it, he fuels the myth of Edward meeting his end by a red-hot poker. This is cited by Starkey in his (Channel Four series) Monarchy, who called Edward’s rear his “fundament”, showing again why he should not roam from his Tudor” area of expertise.

 

 

Marlowe’s legacy of influence in this is obviously less than Shakespeare’s with regard to Richard III, but the parallels are

obvious. In quoting earlier “historians”, Shakespeare transferred the kyphosis of another contemporary figure to Richard, which some naive people still believe, whilst Richard’s disinterment demonstrated him to suffer from scoliosis instead. Indeed, the Starkey acolyte Dan Jones seems untroubled by the facts in either case.

 

 

Invasions

 

SamWillis

I have watched Dr. Sam Willis on several occasions and regularly enjoy his programmes, particularly his artillery series. With the prematurely grey beard, he is usually much more informative than Dan Jones, who is of a similar age.

 

However, part two of his Invasions fell below this standard. It featured a lot of black and white film of William I as a control freak drafting the Domesday Book, building castles and organising archers; John as “evil”, “Perkin” as “an impostor” and Elizabeth I speaking at Tilbury. John was shown stealing a puppy, hanging several and blinding someone for taking deer from a royal forest – a penalty actually introduced by William I. “Perkin”‘s imposture was referred to at least four times with a clip from “The Shadow of the Tower”, whilst Willis didn’t think about the possibility that  he falsely confessed to save his wife and child, which Wroe, Fields and Lewis have considered.

It wasn’t quite as simplistic as many Jones programmes because we were told about Louis the Lion being invited, by some nobles) to ascend the English throne from 1215-7, the Barbary pirates and the Dutch Medway raids of Charles II’s time. As a result, I shall be watching the final episode.

Is Dan Jones beginning to understand …

Edmund “Beaufort”, Duke of Somerset

what is really likely to have happened in the fifteenth century (as Harriss, Ashdown-Hill and Fields strongly suspect)?

At this rate, he will soon learn the fact of the pre-contract and how canon law works.

Rei(g)ned in?

I don’t know how to tell you this but Dan Jones has made further appearances on our television screens this spring. Thankfully, both C5 three-part series have featured him as a sidekick to Suzannah Lipscomb, so his prejudices against various monarchs have had little exercise.
The first of these was about Elizabeth I, featured Lily Cole so the make-up bill was probably limited to a tin or two of Cuprinol. It covered Elizabeth’s life quite well although I learned much less than their series on Henry VIII.
The second series moved on to the Great Fire of London and Jones must be annoyed that he couldn’t vent his theory that Richard III came back to life and carelessly discarded a cigarette butt. By including Rob Bell, an engineer who explained the scientific details of the fire and its effects, in the presentation team makes it much more of a team affair and there was a lot more informative detail from that momentous week. Perhaps it could have been made nine months earlier and broadcast on the 350th anniversary?

 

A lesson in disposing of That Urn…!

Henry_VII_Chapel_Westminster_Abbey-1000x520

Here is an excellent account of That Urn at Westminster Abbey. It demolishes all the “Tudor” flimflam, and entertains as it does so. Read, enjoy and digest, in connection with this.

If you have watched …

… Channel Five’s http://www.channel5.com/show/secrets-of-great-british-castles, let me reassure you of something.

There really was a king named Richard III and Dan Jones has simply forgotten to mention him.

Episode 2 was about Cardiff Castle, where Richard and Anne have a window devoted to them (seasons-greetings-2016-a-2).

Episode 3 was about the structure at York, or Clifford’s Tower as it is now called, which Richard frequented during his dozen years as Lord President of the Council of the North, whilst the city walls had borne the detached heads of his uncle, father (the Duke of York) and brother. Then again, “King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us was, through grete treason, piteously slane and murdred to the grete hevynesse of this citie”., as their macebearer John Spooner recorded soon after Bosworth.

So Richard played a very real part in the history of both cities.

There have been a few interesting parts to this series – the “Black Dinner” with James II and the Douglases at Edinburgh Castle, Curthose held and Llewellyn Bren executed at Cardiff, the witchcraft charges against Joan of Navarre and Eleanor Cobham at Leeds, John starving various enemies to death at Lancaster and elsewhere, together with Robert Aske’s execution and Margaret Clitherow’s death in York, although Henry of Huntingdon could have been mentioned in conjunction with the latter. There has, however, been too much posing by Jones in his leather jacket, T-shirt and jeans firing arrows and trying on armour as the camera focussed on the other historians, includding Hutton, Morris and Capwell being older than him, together with too much dramatisatisation of Jones’ tendentious interpretation of events. The myth of Catherine de Valois and Owain Tudor, from the Leeds episode, is another case in point.

It isn’t that difficult to make a favourable reference to Richard III, surely? Then again, given what Jones has said about John and Edward II, perhaps it is better this way.cliffordstower

“Henry VIII and his six wives” – Channel Five

Henry VIII and His Six Wives

This has been presented by two of Five’s favourite history presenters: Dan Jones and Suzannah Lipscomb. Perhaps the title isn’t the best of starts, as Ashdown-Hill (Royal Marriage Secrets, ch.10, pp.95-113) has shown that Henry may have contracted as few as two valid marriages, the third and sixth ceremonies.

Jones begins every episode by reciting the familiar mnemonic, although the fact that four of the marriages were annulled and none really ended in “divorce” is not mentioned. It is clear, from Jones’ description of Henry as “England’s most notorious King”, a “monster” and a “tyrant”, that he likes the “Tudors” no more than he does their Plantagenet predecessors.

The series starts well with a detailed discussion of Catherine of Aragon’s relationships with Arthur and Henry, including her years as a virtual prisoner from 1502-9 and her subsequent fertility, although Arthur’s boasts are not mentioned. Then the annulment campaign begins and Anne Boleyn is introduced. Here, the pace of the series moves on a little to her end and Wolsey is scarcely mentioned. Torture is shown being applied to one of her lovers but they are executed off camera. Jane Seymour’s time is used to illustrate Henry’s positive emotions although Anne of Cleves is portrayed like a badly-designed doll as Henry once again strives for a legal loophole and Cromwell is despatched for not finding one. As late as 1541, Henry is shown doing the sign of the cross.

Catherine Howard then flits across the screen, raising Henry’s blood pressure further, writing silly letters and having a block delivered to her Tower cell for “practice”, although her relationship with Dereham is not fully explored. Catherine Parr, Catherine of Aragon’s goddaughter, is then shown as restoring Henry’s equilibrium and giving the Reformation a further boost, as Bishop Gardiner tries to persuade him to complete a hat-trick of executed “wives”. Henry resists and dies peacefully.

This subject was covered in 2001 on Channel Four by Jones’ mentor David Starkey who, despite his misconceptions of the previous years , knows the reign of Henry VIII inside out.

Sherlock: The Mystery of the Princes

Giaconda's Blog

sherlock head

Sherlock and Watson are looking for a killer. There has to be a killer or killers because Dan Jones said that ‘The Princes Must Die’ (episode three of Britain’s Bloodiest Crown) and after the Christmas special they are able to time travel which is just as well as they need to whizz back to late C15th England in order to solve the case.

The Game is On!

The list of suspects is fairly normal – people who needed to remove them in order to get closer to the throne, the newly crowned king who feared they would remain figureheads, disgruntled nobles, people who didn’t want the ‘old royal blood’ diluted by ‘chav-bloods’ (thanks Dan – it’s just a touch of Harry Potter for the kids yet also relevant to TOWIE fans) and then there are hired killers who might have done it for the money, to get out of the…

View original post 3,608 more words

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: