The offenders have been caught! Please click here. Meanwhile, our servers net will be updated 3 hours later(1:00 PM PT 21st May), you may not log in Aimoo for about 10 minutes.

Close it  
User Name  Password
Today | Join | Member | Search | Who's On | Chat Room | Photos | Help | Sign In | | | | | Follow Aimoo_Com on Twitter
Title: David Starkey
Hop to: 
Views:416     
New Topic New Poll
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
AuthorComment
Forever_Amber
 Author    



Rank:Diamond Member

Score: 572
Posts: 572
From: USA

(Date Posted:02/20/2009 11:10 AM)
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo

From: Lady Helen  (Original Message)Sent: 1/2/2007 7:06 PM
I was reading David Starkeys book entitled Monarchy and was wondering if someone could clarify something for me. In his " family tree" of the descendents of Edward III he has listed Lionel Duke of Clarence as his son which I understand is correct. But he seems to have Edmund Mortimer listed as Lionels son who married Phillipa but I thought Phillipa was Lionels daughter and she married Edmund Mortimer. Which is correct? Also in his section on Henry VII and Richard III he seems to write with some certainy that Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews Edward V and Richard. I thought there was still much speculation about who ordered their murder even casting suspicion on Henry VII himself or his mother.
From: MSN NicknameLouiseOCSent: 1/3/2007 7:28 AM
You are right about Philippa being Lionel's daughter and Edmund Mortimer his son-in-law.  Perhaps it was an error of the printer's rather than Starkey's?
 
On the subject of Richard III and his nephews, those who belive Richard did it (the traditionalists) think the evidence that he did is overwhelming.  Those who think he didn't do it (the revisionists) think it isn't.  Personally, I am a traditionalist.  I think Richard was guilty as anything.
 
Louise
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 1/3/2007 2:19 PM
I agree Louise, but we are a minority on this site. Whilst the evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt Richard was the killer, it certainly poiints in that direction far more than it does to anyone else.
From: MSN NicknamedzhistorySent: 1/5/2007 12:48 AM
I have to agree with you and Louise on that score.  I believe Richard to have been the culprit. 
From: Lady HelenSent: 1/6/2007 10:18 AM
The main piece of evidence that Starkey uses I think to support Richard III as the murder as opposed to Henry VII or his mother is the fact that before Henry or his mother were in a position to carry out such a deed Edward IV's widow  Elizabeth Woodville and Henry's mother entered into an arrangement to have Henry marry her daughter. Starkey's arguement is that had Elizabeth believed either of her sons, Edward V or Richard, were still alive at the time she would not have felt the need to conspire with Henry's mother to deposed Richard III using Henry and marry him to her daughter. I guess that makes logical sense.
From: MSN NicknameIRISHDEB8Sent: 1/7/2007 11:46 PM
Who better to advance his own cause than Richard,  to keep the two princes hidden for so long and then never seen again seems to me to point to he being responsible....  weren't there skeletons of two small children found during some construction, and were if anyone knows,   DNA tests done? 
From: MSN NicknameLouiseOCSent: 1/8/2007 5:51 AM
There were indeed two skeletons of boys found buried in the Tower, they were found buried under a staircase when some rebuilding was taking place in 1674.  The skeletons were found with 'pieces of rag and velvet about them' according to a contemporary account, and velvet was worn only by persons of the highest rank in the 15th century, it was imported from Italy and was very costly.  And as velvet was invented in 1400, the skeletons couldn't have been from an earlier period as is sometimes claimed by revisionists. 
 
The bones were examined by two doctors in the 1930s, who were satisfied from the evidence that the skeletons were those of the princes. Since then apparently there have been several requests to have the skeletons exhumed and exmained again., but the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey are apparently reluctant to disturbe the bones again.
 
Louise
From: MSN NicknameIRISHDEB8Sent: 1/14/2007 11:59 PM
this seems so cold-hearted...  the poor little fellas,  there seems to me a lot of harsh things done in this age, and mostly for abtaining a crown, protecting one or just pure greed...
From: MSN NicknameLouiseOCSent: 1/15/2007 5:13 PM
Yes, it was very cold-hearted.  Of course, it wasn't the first time a king had been murdered by someone who wanted his crown, Henry IV murdered Richard II, and Edward IV murdered Henry VI.  But I think what shocked people at the time particularly was that it was an uncle murdering his own nephews, who were still children at the time.  This seemed particularly callous.
 
Louise
From: MSN NicknameIRISHDEB8Sent: 1/16/2007 2:45 AM
Does the current monarchy , recognize these bones as being the lost princes?
Also, I think that these Henry's and Richard's you mentioned were out for each other!!  Is there a book or other in print that shows all the kings and queens of England down thru time??
usertype:1
Forever_Amber
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 1# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:572
Posts:572
From: USA

RE:David Starkey
(Date Posted:02/20/2009 11:12 AM)

From: MSN NicknameLouiseOC Sent: 1/16/2007 9:39 AM
I'm not sure what the present royal family think about the Princes in the Tower, I don't recall ever reading an opinion on the subject by any of them.
 
There are quite a few good books about the royal families of England, some with more detail than others.  Some of them only start from the Norman conquest(1066), but because I am interested in early medieval history as well I tend to prefer those that go back to the Saxon Kings.  One of the most enjoyable books I think is 'Britain's Royal Families' by Alison Weir, which goes into detail about the various kings and queens, their offspring, and how they are all related to each other.  This book also includes the Kings and Queens of Scotland (when Scotland was a seperate country) which some books leave out.
 
There are quite a lot of websites that have lists of the Kings and Queens of Britain, in fact I found so many when I typed the words into the search that I don't really know which one to recommend!  Wikipedia has an entry on the subject of course, but there are lots of others.
 
Louise
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5 Sent: 1/16/2007 2:32 PM
I too can recommend Alison Weir's book. It lists all the children, legitimate and illegitimate, of every English and Scottish monarch since the 9th century.
As far as I'm aware the Royal Family accept that the bones in Westminster Abbey are those of the two Princes.  
From: MSN Nicknamedzhistory Sent: 1/17/2007 1:04 AM
There are a lot of books listing the Kings and Queens of England, some more in depth than others, but all pretty good.  The following are in my personal collection and might be found in your local library (there are probably alot of others at the library):
 
The Lives of The Kings and Queens of England
   by Antonia Fraser
   From William the Conqueror through Elizabeth II
 
The Hollow Crown: The Follies, Foibles and Faces of the Kings and Queens of England
   by John Barton and Joy Law
   From William the Conqueror through Elizabeth II
 
Kings and Queens:  A History of British Monarchy
   by Ronald Pearsall
   From the West Saxon Kings starting with Egbert (802 - 839) throuogh Elizabeth II
      - this is a very condensed history.  It talks of all the Kings but very briefly.
 
The Kings and Queens of England: A Tourist Guide
   by Jane Murray
   This one is a little different. The book begins with Elizabeth II and works its way back to Edward the Confessor. It  touches briefly on the Monarchs (though more than Ronald Pearsall's book), it gives the major points on each Monarch.
 
The History of England 
   by Jasper Ridley
   This one you will need to read through the book to get all the names of the Kings and Queens, but it starts about the 6th century.  It starts with a chapter called The English and the Christians and how Britain was divided into more than a dozen pagan English Kingdoms, and gives all the minor Kings names.  It continues through the 20th century.  A very interesting book
 
A History of the English Speaking Peoples
   by Winston Churchill
   This is a 4  volume set and covers everything including all the Kings and Queens from Gaius Julius Caesar's attempts to invade and conquor Britain through Victorian Era. A very informative history.
 
Hope this helps.
From: MSN NicknameIRISHDEB8 Sent: 1/17/2007 1:57 AM
Oh my goodness... I just accidentily clicked on your name Louise and found out that you are in Britain.. who better to know the history of your country...  thank you all for the book references,  I will  be looking into these publications, I on the other hand , am in the US...  I have always enjoyed any history on England, Scotland and Ireland..  I glanced at the castle of the day  last night and was searching into Kenilworth Castle ,  I noticed that there are some books written on this subject  by a John Drew ...  this is the name of my baby brother...  is this neat or what??
From: MSN NicknameLouiseOC Sent: 1/17/2007 12:18 PM
I think it is great that so many Americans seem to be interested in British history, I hope you will find some of the book references useful.  I have always been interested in the Tudors, I used to live just a few miles from Hampton Court Palace, which I visited very often. The area I lived in was Tudor themed, the main road was called Tudor Drive, and most of the roads off it had Tudor names, Aragon Road, Anne Bolyen's Walk (a cul-de-sac, appropriately enough) Cleeves Road, etc.  The local pub was called The Cardinal and had a painting of Cardinal Woolsey as the sign, and most of the houses were mock-Tudor.
 
Now I live in Dover, which is nice too in its way, Dover Castle has a permanent exhibiton about the visit of King Henry VIII, with the rooms that would have been the throne room, bedroom etc done up in Tudor style, and lots of exhibits about Henry and his household, wives etc. You can play a Tudor board game and have a go at plaiting rush matting, building a model of Dover harbour at the time, doing a quiz about the wives etc, the children love it. The nearby towns of Walmer and Deal have smaller castles which were built by Henry VIII, so there is quite a lot of Tudor history in the area one way and another.
 
Louise
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5 Sent: 1/17/2007 2:23 PM
I visited Dover for the first time last year and also went to Walmer and Deal, all three were superb.
From: MSN NicknameIRISHDEB8 Sent: 1/19/2007 11:43 PM
I would love to visit England, Ireland and Scotland!  All American's should look more into British history, as a large number of us came to this country from these three countries.  Although, now we are a lot more diverse...  but my family also has American Indian in our ancestry ( Cherokee & Blackfeet ) I come from a family with six children , and I do believe I am the true changeling ,  I can not get enough of things concerning England , Ireland, etc...  I love its history, its speech, and I find myself watching anything about it..  I even would rather watch the BBC channel than any of our programs!  My sisters and brothers all favor the Indian features, but I am very fair and have green eyes ,  dark hair(once) with red highlights.  All my rings are claddaghs , even my earrings, I do believe that I have a strong Irish bend.  But I repeat ,  I love England just as much...
From: MSN NicknameLouiseOC Sent: 1/20/2007 1:44 AM
I think it is really interesting that you have such varied anticedents.  I think it is great that you are interested in finding about your British and Irish ancestry.  How lovely that you have Cherokee and Blackfoot blood as well, that is a wonderful mixture.
 
Funnily enough, I am very interested in finding out about my american ancestry!  My paternal grandfather was American, he came from Kansas, but he died before my father was born so we have never known much about him or his antecedents.  However, my brother recently made contact over the Internet with a distant cousin of ours in America, and she knows a lot about our ancestry.  Apparently our great-great-great-great-great grandfather left Ireland for America in 1730, so I am now going to study what was happening in America at that time, as I have realised that i know hardly anything about American history between the Pilgrim Fathers and the Revolutionary War!
 
Louise
From: MSN NicknameIRISHDEB8 Sent: 1/27/2007 1:58 AM
well, do you think we might be cousin's?? (laughing)  I do know that a lot of my ancestors came from Ireland , the Drew side of my family came to this country in the early 1600's..  as I said this name has been traced to Normandy and William in 1066 ,  we also know that members of this family fought with Braveheart ( William Wallace )... My mothers family were Hornsby, Wilson"s and Strong's..  we are all from Kentucky
From: Greensleeves Sent: 1/27/2007 2:25 AM
Anne Bolyen's Walk (a cul-de-sac, appropriately enough)
From: MSN NicknameIRISHDEB8 Sent: 1/28/2007 2:14 AM
Have you tried Ancestry.com ?  it has listings on there according to states as well as name searches...  and you can go to the US Census , also we only have them every 70 years , so the one now is for 1930...
usertype:1 tt= 0
Ex-member
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 2# 



RE:David Starkey
(Date Posted:12/05/2009 1:49 PM)

I was just wondering what everything think of David Starkey?
The_Last_Boleyn
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 3# 



From: Australia

RE:David Starkey
(Date Posted:12/06/2009 11:54 PM)

I like his documentaries, but his books can get a bit boring if read all in one chunk. I struggled with his Six Wives book, but am yet to read the new one about Henry.
usertype:5 tt= 0
Greensleeves
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 4# 



Rank:Platinum Member

Score:256
Posts:256
From: USA

RE:David Starkey
(Date Posted:12/22/2009 5:52 AM)

I think Antonia Fraser's Six Wives is the best of the lot.  Starkey can be rather melodramatic & sometimes he catches Weir-itis LOL which means on occasion he makes an outrageous statement with nothing to back it up.  But they seem to like him on UK TV.  I guess anyone who stirs up historical interest like he does can't be all bad.
usertype:1 tt= 0
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
New Topic New Poll

" height=86 width=189>
[List Sites] [Random] [Join]
Sign Up | Create | About Us | SiteMap | Features | Forums | Show Off | Faq | Help
Copyright © 2000-2013 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.