GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-11 > 0911000054


From: "Andrew S. Kalinkin" <>
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Lucy (was King Edward IV & mistress?) and "Royal Blood"
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:34:14 +0300


John Steele Gordon wrote:

> I didn't say he had a pro-ricardian (please note, no "H") bias. As you
> yourself quoted, I said that he laid "out every matter, with the evidence for
> all sides, for the reader to see." I said he was clearly a ricardian at heart.
> That is a very different statement.

Maybe there is a big difference between being "pro-ricardian"
(OK, I drop "H") and "ricardian in heart", but I don't see any.
I didn't read Fields (I didn't read Weir either), so I can't
evaluate his bias, but it was you who characterized his work as
"a brief for the defense in the case of History v. Richard III".
And I always thought that the duty of defence attorney is to
defend his client, not truth.

> Alison Weir, on the other hand, is biased. She assumes the Tudor argument
> whole, presents what ever evidence there is to support it, and dismisses all
> exculpatory evidence either by simply ignoring it or by refuting it with
> demonstrable rubbish.

Maybe because this "evidence" IS rubbish?

> Mr. Fields, in my estimation, tried hard to present the facts fairly and fully
> and I think he did an excellent job.

Yes, I understand now. It is nothing more than a coincindence
that results of this farly and objective research confirms his
(and, aparently, yours) initial prejudices. :-) But one thing
remains unclear to me. If he is so objective, how do you know
that he is "ricardian in heart"?

> Ms. Weir was engaged in nothing more than an exercise in propaganda.

Now it becomes really interesting. I often saw that any
contemporary work unfavourable to Richard III is labeled
by ricardians as "Tudor propaganda", but now in extends
on modern works as well? Probably all anti-ricardians
are paid agents of Tudors. Fascinating news!
Please, where I can collect my money?

> So there was no double standard, unless, of course, you think that those who,
> despite human frailty, seek the truth and those who, because of human frailty,
> seek only to win the argument are moral equals.

There is difference, of course, but how you determine who
comes in each category? Unfortunately, quite often such
difference looks like "Everyone who agree with me falls
in the first category, everyone who doesn't, to second".
Of course, I don't mean that it is your point of view,
so please do not take this statement as personal offense.

> I was unaware until now that those who think that Richard III may have gotten a
> raw deal from the court of history had created an entire system of thought.
> Wow. These guys must be serious.

This guys really are very serious. While reading any ricardian
materials I always have a impression that Richard III was slain
5 days of at least 5 months ago, not 500+ years.
BTW, what is court of history? Is it reference to the favourite
toy of Richard III Society - "Richard III trials"?

Andrew S. Kalinkin
Moscow, Russia

This thread: