murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the tag “New York Times”

Oops, the NY Times claimed Richard wasn’t found in Leicester, but in London….!

ny times - genetics review

Even the New York Times gets it wrong! Apparently an earlier version of a book review had Richard being found in London, not Leicester. Someone advised them, and the error was corrected.

Anyway, to read the whole review of A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVERYONE WHO EVER LIVED: The Human Story Retold Through Our Genes by Adam Rutherford, go here.

Advertisements

The Madness of King Richard III

alan bennett

Playwright Alan Bennett

A while back, Sunday, December 3rd, 2017, to be exact,  I was looking through The New York Times Book Review section when I came across playwright Alan Bennett’s new book called “Keeping On Keeping On.”  It was a mildly interesting review of his diary (ODD SPOILER ALERT:  he once shared the same doctor as Sylvia Plath) until I got to this:  “He’s so upset at what the Richard III Society has done to an old church that he rips down their banner and ‘would have burned it, had I had a match.'”   Brow knitted, I wondered:  what have those wild-eyed, tweedy academic types been up to this time??

Well, a brief Google search provided a hint in yet another book review, this time from the London Review of Books.  In published excerpts from 2014, Bennett dismisses the significance of finding Richard the Third’s remains although admitting that the reconstructed head looks astonishingly like his famed portrait.  Comparing Ricardians to those who believe Edward DeVere was a genius while William Shakespeare nothing more than the dim-bulb son of a rural glove-maker, he goes on to say this:

“Just east of Leeds and not far from Towton and its bloody battlefield is Lead Church, a medieval cell of a chapel which possibly served as a refuge or a dressing station after the battle in 1461.  I have known the chapel since I was a boy when I used to go out there on my bike.  It stands in the middle of a field, the grass grazed by sheep right up to the south door and has latterly been in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust.  It was untouched as late as 2000 when it figured in an article I wrote for The World of Interiors.  However, calling there a few years ago we found that the grass outside the south door had been replaced or supplemented by a patio not even in York stone but in some fake composition.  Inside, draped in front of the altar was a gaudy banner advertising the Richard III Society.  This I rolled up and had I had the means would have destroyed.  I wrote to the CCT, who generally do a decent job but was told the patio had been there for many years.  It hadn’t and I suspect the culprits were the Richard III Society, who see the church as a Yorkist site…”

loyalty binds

Gaudy?

According to Mr. Bennett, not only have Ricardians managed to rehabilitate the name of the last Yorkist king but apparently have gone into the concrete, paving and masonry business! Of course, he offers no proof that the Society had anything to do with building a bad-taste deck on the back of a medieval church but when it comes to the world of denialists, I suppose any insult will do.*  Luckily for them, while we Ricardian hard hats may be expert at mixing concrete along with our metaphors, we no longer prepare “Chicago overcoats” or cement shoes for those who have differing opinions…

construction

A Ricardian on lunch break?  I think not!

 

 

*The website of St. Mary Lead reports only that it received a grant from The Richard the Third Society for renovations.  It says nothing about the Society directing or instructing or approving the work.

Echoes of Minster Lovell?

In 1708, a skeleton is supposed to have been found in a secret chamber of the ruins of Minster Lovell Hall. The legend is that this pertains to Francis, Viscount Lovell, who was known to have fought at Stoke Field in 1487, suggesting that he may have fled back to his home to hide and suffocated as a result.

There are two complications with this legend:
1) Lovell was granted a safe conduct to Scotland on 19 June 1488 by James IV, whose reign had begun just eight days earlier, after his father’s defeat and death in the Sauchieburn rebellion. This does not prove that Lovell ever left for Scotland, indeed it could even have been a bluff on James’ part, implying that the Yorkist adherent was still alive to foment further resistance in England.
2) Minster Lovell Hall had been in the hands of Jasper “Tudor”, Duke of Bedford, for almost two years, making it very difficult for Francis to just stroll into his former home undetected for a game of sardines.

The New York Times and the Smithsonian website here have introduced a very similar case. A skeleton has been found at Leine Castle in Germany and will undergo DNA testing in case it is Count Philip Christoph Konigsmarck, the lover of Sophia Dorothea of Celle and a Swedish nobleman who was last seen in 1694. It is thought that the future George I, Sophia Dorothea’s husband then known as Georg Ludwig, caused or ordered Konigsmarck’s death.

blue_plaque_of_francis_lovell

1694 was the year that Mary II died without issue but her husband William III was still to live for eight years. He didn’t remarry but could have done. His sister-in-law Anne was still alive with at least one of her children. The Act of Settlement, which excluded Catholic claimants was not passed until 1701, so James VII/II’s son (James Francis Edward) and youngest daughter (Louisa Maria Teresa) still arguably had claims to the British thrones, as did Sophie, Electress of Hanover, who was Georg Ludwig’s elderly mother and only predeceased Anne by a few months in 1714.

In 1694, Georg was possibly seventh in line and could have been relegated further had William III had children by another wife or Anne’s children survived for longer. The events of the next twenty years, although all natural or legislative, were almost of Kind Hearts and Coronets proportions.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: