murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the tag “David Starkey”

DID RICHARD LOVE ANNE?

FullSizeRender 3.jpg

Thanks to the contemporaneous accounts given by Croyland (1) and the Acts of Court (2) we have a good insight into the events that followed, almost immediately, the death of Queen Anne i.e. the rumours that Richard, in his eagerness to marry his niece, hastened the death of his wife with the aid of poison – his denial, made publically, ‘in a loud and distinct voice’ (3) in the Great Hall of the Priory of the Knights Hospitaller of St John, Clerkenwell – pushed to it by Sir Richard Ratcliffe and William Catesby, although Croyland adds, rather slyly, it was not what he really wished himself..and there is no need to go into all the detail here as it is well known.

612px-St_Johns_Gate.jpg

The Gate House of the Priory of the Knights Hospitaller of St John at Clerkenwell.

 

I would have thought, hopefully , that nowadays, the idea that Richard could have poisoned Anne is now perceived as ridiculous, a complete and utter nonsense.  However, not entirely so.  Indeed Prof Hicks in his biography of Anne –  Anne Neville Queen to Richard lll (“The first time in ages that a publisher has sent me a book that I actually want to read” opines David Starkey – well he would wouldn’t he?)  wrote, in a chapter headed ‘Past her Sell By Date’ that ‘she was unwell, languishing and died, unattended and indeed unregretted by her husband”(4).  What?  Anne the Queen, dying a lonely death, cruelly neglected by her uncaring husband? – its a Scandal!.  And where was Richard at that desperately sad time?  One way to find out..check Rhoda Edwards wonderful little book – The Itinerary of King Richard lll 1483 – 1485(5).  And there we have it..the truth of the matter.  From the onset of Anne’s fatal illness, not long after Christmas 1484 to her death on Wednesday 16 March 1485, Richard never left the Palace of Westminster, where she lay dying, except for a total of ll days when he was at Windsor.

I would say that there could be no stronger indication than this, that, yes, Richard did love his wife and was loyal to her to the end.  He could have gone elsewhere, made his excuses, got away from it all but he didn’t.  He stayed with her until the day she died – finally leaving Westminster on Thursday 12 April – never to return.  Five months later, he too was dead.  Clearly he gave to Anne the loyalty that he was to find so disastrously lacking in others to himself.  But then again, this was a man whose motto was Loyaltie me Lie.

  1. Croyland p.499
  2. Richard lll The Road to Bosworth, P W Hammond & Anne F Sutton, Acts of Court pp 173-4.
  3. Croyland p.499
  4. Anne Neville Queen to Richard lll, Michael Hicks, Chaper 7, Past Her Sell by Date, p.212.
  5. Itinerary of King Richard lll  1483-1485, pp29, 30, 31, 32, 33.  Rhoda Edwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

History and cultural history (II)

In this piece, we introduced the idea that Shakespeare, although a very inaccurate historian, accurately reflected the cultural history of his time with respect to the political execution of women. We have also discussed how the Bard’s Richard III may actually have been a portrayal of Robert Cecil. Another piece showed the uncertainty as to the origin of coloured roses as politico-military badges.

Now think of Hamlet. His adversary is King Claudius, his uncle, supported by the verbose courtier Polonius. The play was set in Denmark and 220px-claudius_crop 220px-edwin_booth_hamlet_1870written during 1599-1602 when it was apparent that England would soon have Anne of Denmark as Queen Consort. Hamlet kills Polonius as the older man hides behind an arras, which is a tapestry or curtain.

In January 41 AD, Claudius was proclaimed as Rome’s new Emperor. Graves portrayed him as hiding behind a curtain as his nephew Gaius (“Caligula”) was assassinated, to be found by a Praetorian named Gratus. Sometimes, it seems, those writing fiction cannot be original.

Bang on the nose….!

david_starkey3

I have just come upon the following couplet, concerning a historian’s mistakes:-

‘Others to some faint meaning make pretence
But (——–) never deviates into sense.’

Well, the original two-syllabled name fled from my mind, to be replaced by another of similar construction. Starkey! Yes, folks, a couplet entirely suited to him.

‘Others to some faint meaning make pretence
But Starkey never deviates into sense.’

A Loon strikes back!

 

 

Who is this a portrait of?

It is reputed to be Jane, who was executed in February 1554 at the age of about seventeen. She looks a little older than that to us, but teenagers’ dress sense has changed in the space of 460 years and most of her portraits date from at least forty years after her lifetime.

This, by an unknown artist in about 1590 and inscribed “Lady Jayne”, is known as the Streatham Portrait but was purchased in Ipswich between 1890 and 1910 by a regular customer of Green’s, a bookseller and antique dealer based near the Central Library until comparatively recently. It can be viewed at the National Portrait Gallery but has been the subject of controversy since its rediscovery. Leading art dealer Christopher Foley has authenticated it but David Starkey disagrees. Of course, it may not be the original.

So what do you think?

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich_s_link_to_art_mystery_1_106536

http://www.npg.org.uk/support/individual/face-to-face/lady-jane-grey.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streatham_portrait

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/this-is-not-anne-boleyn/comment-page-1/#comment-3319

“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.

Coming soon -Plantagenet Ninja Supermarket Sweep!

Giaconda's Blog

Donald CBE FSA FRHistS  -‘ that’s how many letters I have after my name and still no mention of a knighthood! Snarkey’ will be the talking head behind Channel 5’s new documentary/ game show/ reality tv series which will be launched later this year in response to the great feedback on Dan Jones’s ‘Britain’s Bloody Awful Crown of People who lived before the Tudors.’

The channel is looking to attract a new target audience of students and Big Brother types who want to test their limited knowledge of stuff that happened before the Tudors but in a funky format which allows for ad breaks every five minutes so they can tweet during the show segments.

‘It’s going to be a light-hearted mash-up of the old Supermarket Sweep format meets Ninja warriors with a history angle in the form of questions posed by Donald ‘I’ve been to Buck House and met…

View original post 640 more words

Bloody Kings: The Plantagenets for Dummies

Giaconda's Blog

Dim is making a documentary for tv. He has a vision – ‘It’s going to be a mash-up, GOTs meets Merlin with a bit of Simon Schama pacing thrown in to showcase my amazing range of jackets! I want to bring all that old history stuff up to date and make it sexy for the kids, in’nt.’

Cindy is Dim’s research assistant, she once played a cadaver on Casulty which is how she got into the business but studied History at Uni so she really knows her stuff. She did that bit about the Corn Laws and her special module was on the History of Spam through the Ages. She’s going to be checking out all the ‘accuracy’ bits that Dim doesn’t want to think about because they really screw up the sex and violence.

Dim: ‘Right, we’ve got three episodes and we need to cover loads of stuff and…

View original post 1,668 more words

John Guy on More …

… or how a Lord Chancellor fell victim to the King he idolised and one historian stayed loyal to his mentor but another didn’t:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/tudor-terror-john-guy-is-on-a-mission-to-bring-history-to-the-masses-876441.html

An Unbiased Review

I only recently found the attached review of the Channel 4 documantary ‘The Princes in the Tower’, which we all thought was awful! It seems this journalist agreed with us!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/11486107/Richard-III-the-Princes-in-the-Tower-Channel-4-review.htmlking-richard

Apart from a few minor details …

… David Starkey thinks that he has solved the mystery of the “Princes”.

The minor details are:
1) Tyrrell’s trial was for helping the de la Pole brothers, not to do with any “murder” of anyone at all.
2) The (fully documented by Thomas Penn) trial took place at the Guildhall, not the Tower. Henry VII “Tudor” and his wife effectively lived at the Tower, as they were waiting another 200 years fror Buckingham Palace to be built.
3) There was no confession by Tyrrell and no suggestion of one until after Henry VII’s death (see “As the King gave out” by Susan E. Leas).

Thanks to Annette Carson (http://www.annettecarson.co.uk/357052362).
Our original review of the programme: https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/review-of-the-princes-in-the-tower-channel-4/
Leas’ article was in the March 1977 Ricardian :http://www.richardiii.net/6_3_2_ricardian_index.php

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: