First time visitor? Learn more.

William Shakespeare has a (parking) lot to answer for; and the mighty Plantagenet dynasty which lasted for 331 years

by Speranza ( 83 Comments › )
Filed under History at February 6th, 2013 - 7:00 pm

I’ve always been fascinated by English medieval history and Richard III (the last Plantagenet King of England)  although King of England for barely two  years (July 6, 1483 – August 22, 1485) has always been a monarch of great interest. William Shakespeare who was working for a Tudor (and later a Stuart) monarch introduced Richard as the ultimate villain, the murderer of his two nephews (one of which was King Edward V, the other Edward V’s younger brother also named Richard) and a man whose deformed morality matched his deformed body. Of course the real story is far more nuanced. Richard no doubt was as ruthless as your typical Renaissance monarch but as I pointed out in one of the headlines, he was no more ruthless (and in many ways less) then many of his predecessors (including his brother King Edward IV  who was responsible for the murder of King Henry VI) and less ruthless then his great-nephew King Henry VIII would turn out to be. As they say, the history books are written by the victors, and Richard was defeated and killed by the forces of Henry Tudor , the Earl of Richmond (who was aided by the treacherous betrayal of Richard by Lord William Stanley) at the Battle of Bosworth Field, on August 22, 1485 (which was the last battle of the Wars of the Roses).

by Andrew Roberts

The news that the skeleton of King Richard III has been found under a parking lot in Leicester, a city 100 miles north of London, should finally end half a millennium of winters of discontent for the most maligned monarch in English history. It proves that it is never too late to save one’s reputation.

In William Shakespeare’s “Richard III,” the king is shown facilitating the deaths of King Henry VI and his son Prince Edward; of Richard’s brother George, Duke of Clarence (drowned in a butt of malmsey wine); of the Second Duke of Buckingham; of Richard’s own wife, Anne Neville; and especially of the Princes in the Tower of London, the 12-year-old King Edward V and his 9-year-old brother Richard, Duke of York. It is the greatest example of theatrical overkill since the Tarantino-like closing scenes of “Hamlet” and “Macbeth,” yet there is absolutely no evidence that Richard was guilty of any of it. Shakespeare even has Richard killing the Duke of Somerset at the battle of St. Albans, which took place when Richard was 2 years old.

It is hoped by Ricardians (yes, the small but vocal band of Richard III’s supporters have a sobriquet) that the world-wide interest in his disinterment by Leicester University archaeologists will focus attention on his reputation. Just because his last stand at the Battle of Bosworth Field took place 528 years ago, it doesn’t mean that a good man’s name should continue to be sullied.  [......]

Richard should be admired even today. After all, here is a monarch who abolished press censorship, invented the right to bail for people awaiting trial, reformed the country’s finances, and led bravely in battle despite a crippling disability.

It was Richard’s tragedy that after being betrayed by the turncoat Stanley family at Bosworth, he then had to contend with the greatest poet-playwright in the English language spin-doctoring against him on behalf of the incoming regime. When the Tudors defeated and succeeded the last of the Plantagenets, they constantly briefed against the previous administration, blaming it for all the country’s ills. Shakespeare even has Richard say: “I am determined to prove a villain.”  [.......]

Assuming that the skeleton really is that of the king—as the DNA experts at Leicester contend, having connected him to a Canadian carpenter named Michael Ibsen, who is directly descended from King Richard’s mother—its curvature of the spine implies that Shakespeare only slightly exaggerated by making him hunchbacked. A contemporary, the historian John Rous, described Richard as “slight in body and weak in strength,” yet the king led his men into many battles and at Bosworth “to his last breath he held himself nobly in a defending manner.” [.......]

As Josephine Tey so elegantly demonstrated in her 1951 crime novel “The Daughter of Time,” no modern court would convict Richard III of the murder of the princes in the Tower, whose possible skeletons—discovered in 1674 under the staircase leading to the chapel—ought now to be disinterred from Westminster Abbey and subjected to DNA tests and modern pathology examinations. “Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead,” says Richard in the play. Yet the evidence for their murders is at best circumstantial, and at worst pure Tudor invention.

Not merely Richard III, but also his killer and successor Henry VII needed the princes out of the way. It is known that Henry became highly perturbed throughout his reign whenever (as happened regularly) pretenders appeared, claiming to be the princes. This implies that he suspected that they might still have been alive at the time of Bosworth.

Rumors abounded, for example, that they may have escaped the country into the care of their aunt, the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy. A DNA test on the bones supposed to be those of the Princes might establish whether they are the royal children, but it wouldn’t tell us how they died.[.......]Certainly Richard’s July 6, 1483, coronation was very well attended, which might not have been the case had his contemporaries believed that he had murdered his brother’s children.

There is something uplifting in the thought that even five centuries years after his death, a wronged monarch might at last find posthumous justice.

Read the rest -Shakespeare has a (Parking) Lot to answer for

Often overlooked by the dynasty that overthrew them, namely the Tudors, the Plantagenet dynasty in England which began with the reign of Henry II in 1154 is a fascinating one. The Plantagenets include several of the monarchs who figure prominently in the history of our Western Civilization such as – Henry II, Richard I (the Lionhearted), the evil John (of the Magna Carta), Edward I (Longshanks), Edward III (a great warrior King and patron of Geoffrey Chaucer), Henry V (the victor of Agincourt), and ending with the death of Richard III in 1485. The Plantagenets traced their dynasty to Geoffrey of Anjou who wore a sprig of a yellow flower in his helmet called a Planta Genesta.

by Andrew Roberts

King Richard III, whose severely wounded body disinterred from under a parking lot in the British Midlands was confirmed by DNA testing this week, was the last of the 14 Plantagenet monarchs who ruled England from 1154 until Richard’s death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. The Plantagenets are only usually in the news when an ambitious theater director with a big budget chooses to stage all eight of Shakespeare’s “Plantagenet plays,” from Richard II to Richard III via two parts of Henry IV, Henry V, and three parts of Henry VI.

Sometimes written off by historians as mere medieval military oafs with nothing much more interesting to contribute than smiting, in fact the Plantagenet monarchs who ruled from Henry II to Richard III were a fairly accomplished lot. It was hardly their fault that the real literary and artistic renaissance of Britain took place after they lost power, although writers such as Geoffrey Chaucer, John Gower, and William Langland did flourish in their era.

[.........]

The clue to the Plantagenets’ success is to be found in King Edward I’s nickname, “The Hammer of the Scots,” because once the Scottish incursions in the north had been defeated it was a relatively simple matter to dominate the rest of the British Isles (with the exception of southern Ireland, always a law unto itself). With the control of mainland Britain and Northern Ireland, and the re-adoption of English as the official language in 1362, came a genuine sense of national identity.

In the realm of law it was the Plantagenet King John, who—albeit extremely reluctantly—gave the English-speaking peoples the right of habeas corpus, perhaps the very cornerstone of all our common law liberties to this day, nearly nine centuries after the signing of the Magna Carta. [.......]John was an appallingly bad king, yet no less an authority on the English-speaking peoples as Winston Churchill believed that “We owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns.”

An area where the Plantagenets labored virtuously, in a way that still can be admired today, was in building those great structures of medieval Britain that have retained the capacity to impress. The great Gothic cathedrals that were centuries later to inspire Romantic painters such as Gainsborough, the border castles in Wales that still attract millions of visitors every year, the architectural glories of Westminster Abbey, York Minster, and King’s College, Cambridge were all built by Plantagenets. [......]

Another great achievement of the Plantagenets was that they simply lasted on the throne for 331 years, albeit with the last three decades scarred by the Wars of the Roses, which only came to an end with Richard’s death at Bosworth. For a family to occupy something as lethally dangerous as a medieval throne for over three centuries was remarkable, and certainly thrashes their hated rivals, the Tudors (at 118 years), but also the Normans (123 years), Stuarts (85 years), Hanoverians (187 years), and the present House of Windsor (112 years).

The Black Death, Hundred Years’ War, and Peasants’ Revolt all took place during the Plantagenets’ watch, along with endless barons’ wars, great plagues, and the burning of Joan of Arc. Yet there was also Henry V’s victory at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, perhaps the dynasty’s high spot. One Plantagenet king had a red-hot poker inserted into his anus to kill him in such a way that his body could be displayed to the populace (Edward II), another was captured on his return from the Crusades and ransomed at vast expense (Richard the Lionheart), but unlike some of the Hanoverian kings, they were never boring. They weren’t a particularly artistic family—except for Henry VI who, possibly not coincidentally, was one of the weakest of them all—but they certainly provided Shakespeare with a good deal of great material. And Richard III died with a sword in his hand, like a true Plantagenet.

Read the rest - The mighty – and  overlooked – Reign of the Plantagenets

Tags: , , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

83 Responses to “William Shakespeare has a (parking) lot to answer for; and the mighty Plantagenet dynasty which lasted for 331 years”
( jump to bottom )

  1. yenta-fada
    1 | February 6, 2013 7:33 pm

    Speranza;

    This is so interesting. I’m not sure it will get the attention it deserves. You might want to save it?
    Dinner bell.
    Why do I think Jimmy Hoffa when I read ‘found under a parking lot’.
    I keed.


  2. buzzsawmonkey
    2 | February 6, 2013 7:53 pm

    Strictly speaking, the Hanoverians and the Windsors are the same family; they just changed their name during WWI, if memory serves.


  3. rain of lead
    3 | February 6, 2013 7:58 pm

    just got to


  4. buzzsawmonkey
    4 | February 6, 2013 8:01 pm

    Although this is a little later than Richard III, this song, “The Vicar of Bray,” is a famous ballad describing religious and political opportunism through a succession of English kings of various religion. A beautiful recording, too, by the great Richard Dyer-Bennet.

    The illustrious House of Hanover, and Protestant succession
    To them I do allegiance swear—whilst they may hold possession
    For in my faith and loyalty, I never more shall falter
    And George my lawful king shall be—until the times do alter

    And this be law, that I’ll maintain, until my dying day, sir
    That whatsoever king may reign, still I’ll be the Vicar of Bray, sir!


  5. 5 | February 6, 2013 8:05 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Strictly speaking, the Hanoverians and the Windsors are the same family; they just changed their name during WWI, if memory serves.

    Yes, they Windsors wanted to hide their German roots.


  6. Dolphin
    6 | February 6, 2013 8:16 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Your history knowledge (along with some others here) is truly amazing. I am slowly learning through research and reading, but feel I will never know all I want or need to. I was taught history by “dates” in high school and found it very boring. Now I cannot get enough of it.

    I know a lot here have issues with Glenn Beck, but I totally agree with his stance that history is more than dates, it is the stories behind the dates.


  7. brookly red
    7 | February 6, 2013 8:19 pm

    slightly off topic…

    The Blue Pigeon.

    The Mayor of London was very worried about a plague of pigeons in the City Centre.

    He Could not remove the pigeons from the city. All of LondonWas full of pigeon poop, the people of London could not walk on the pavements, or drive on the roads.

    It Was costing a fortune to keep the streets and pavements Clean.

    One Day a man came to the Town Hall and offered the Mayor a Proposition.

    ‘I Can rid your beautiful city of its plague of pigeons without any cost to the city. But, you must promise not to ask me any questions.

    Or, You can pay me one million pounds to ask one question.’

    The mayor considered the offer briefly and accepted the free Proposition.

    The next day the man climbed to the top of the Nelson’s Column, opened his coat, and released a blue pigeon. The blue pigeon circled in the air and flew up into the bright blue London sky.

    All The pigeons in London saw the blue pigeon and gathered up in The air behind the bird. The London pigeons followed The blue pigeon as she flew eastwards out of the city.

    The next day the blue pigeon returned completely alone to the man on top of Nelson’s Column

    The Mayor was very impressed. He felt the man and the blue pigeon had performed a wonderful miraculous service to rid London of the plague of pigeons. Even though the man with the pigeon had charged Nothing, the mayor presented him with a cheque for 1 million pounds and told the man that, indeed, he did have a question to ask and even though they had agreed to no fee and the man had rid the city of pigeons, he decided to pay the 1 million just to get to ask ONE question

    The Man accepted the money and told the mayor to ask his ONE Question.

    The Mayor asked:

    ‘Do You have a blue Muslim ??


  8. 8 | February 6, 2013 8:21 pm

    @ Dolphin:

    but I totally agree with his stance that history is more than dates, it is the stories behind the dates.

    He’s right.


  9. huckfunn
    9 | February 6, 2013 8:23 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Strictly speaking, the Hanoverians and the Windsors are the same family; they just changed their name during WWI, if memory serves.

    Yes, they Windsors wanted to hide their German roots.

    Same thing with my ancestors. My last name is that of a German city. 2 brothers from that city emigrated from Germany in the mid 1800′s. One went to England and one went to America and settled in Minnesota. The descendants of the Minnesota bunch still use the German pronunciation. In fact, one of them was involved with the German-American Bund and spent most of WWII in an internment camp. I am descended from the the brother who went to England. Around the time of WWI, they changed to a French pronunciation of the German name and that’s how my family now pronounces it.


  10. buzzsawmonkey
    10 | February 6, 2013 8:23 pm

    @ Dolphin:

    Let me recommend, for sheer fun, one of the best history books I know: the Variety Music Cavalcade, 1620-1950.

    There is, I understand, another later version that goes up to 1961. It is a fat volume that details the most popular songs for each of the years mentioned, with a batch of intelligent, witty snippets that discuss some of the events that occurred in each year.

    It’s a way to learn how old—or new—various songs are, and to get some idea of an awful lot of past incidents in a way that is very interesting.


  11. Dolphin
    11 | February 6, 2013 8:30 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    I alternate between serious books and true fiction entertainment books. I have to with some of the subject matters. Thanks for the recommendation!

    Btw -- best fiction book in the past five years was Life of Pi. Absolutely great book!


  12. Speranza
    12 | February 6, 2013 8:30 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    Speranza;
    This is so interesting. I’m not sure it will get the attention it deserves. You might want to save it?
    Dinner bell.
    Why do I think Jimmy Hoffa when I read ‘found under a parking lot’.
    I keed.

    Yeah I did not schedule it and wonder if it should have gone up at another time. Thanks.


  13. Speranza
    13 | February 6, 2013 8:31 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Strictly speaking, the Hanoverians and the Windsors are the same family; they just changed their name during WWI, if memory serves.

    Correct. The Windsor’s were originally Saxe-Coburg Gotha and being it is a German name, it was changed to Windsor for patriotic reasons in 1917.


  14. Speranza
    14 | February 6, 2013 8:32 pm

    Dolphin wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Your history knowledge (along with some others here) is truly amazing. I am slowly learning through research and reading, but feel I will never know all I want or need to. I was taught history by “dates” in high school and found it very boring. Now I cannot get enough of it.
    I know a lot here have issues with Glenn Beck, but I totally agree with his stance that history is more than dates, it is the stories behind the dates.

    The key to loving history (in my opinion) is to read narrative history and to read it for pure pleasure.


  15. buzzsawmonkey
    15 | February 6, 2013 8:34 pm

    Dolphin wrote:

    I alternate between serious books and true fiction entertainment books. I have to with some of the subject matters. Thanks for the recommendation!

    There are mentions of things like mining and rail disasters, political and diplomatic events, etc., all described in short paragraphs that are a pleasure to read. It was astounding to me to see how recently events which cost hundreds of lives occurred with routine regularity in the US. It was fascinating to watch the emergence of what were then called “Coon Songs,” their overlap with a lot of songs pitched to the Irish market (this was when George M. Cohan was big), and then the move away from such overtly ethnic material. It’s a great way to “meet” America, particularly in the period from 1800 to 1950—and the sort of thing you can, even should, spelunk in rather than read cover to cover.


  16. Speranza
    17 | February 6, 2013 8:39 pm

    Gasps as archaeologists reveal brutal death of Richard III

    Richard died at Bosworth on 22 August 1485, the last English king to fall in battle, and the researchers revealed how for the first time. There was an audible intake of breath as a slide came up showing the base of his skull sliced off by one terrible blow, believed to be from a halberd, a fearsome medieval battle weapon with a razor-sharp iron axe blade weighing about two kilos, mounted on a wooden pole, which was swung at Richard at very close range. The blade probably penetrated several centimetres into his brain and, said the human bones expert Jo Appleby, he would have been unconscious at once and dead almost as soon.
    The injury appears to confirm contemporary accounts that he died in close combat in the thick of the battle and unhorsed -- as in the great despairing cry Shakespeare gives him: “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”
    Another sword slash, which also went through the bone and into the brain, would also have proved fatal. But many of the other injuries were after death, suggesting a gruesome ritual on the battlefield and as the king’s body was brought back to Leicester, as he was stripped, mocked and mutilated -- which would have revealed for the first time to any but his closest intimates the twisted back, a condition from an unknown cause, which began to contort his body from the age of about 10. By the time he died he would have stood inches shorter than his true height of 5 foot 8 inches, tall for a medieval man. The bones were those of an unusually slight, delicately built man -- Appleby described him as having an “almost feminine” build -- which also matches contemporary descriptions.
    One terrible injury, a stab through the right buttock and into his pelvis, was certainly after death, and could not have happened when his lower body was protected by armour. It suggests the story that his naked corpse was brought back slung over the pommel of a horse, mocked and abused all the way, was true. Bob Savage, a medieval arms expert from the Royal Armouries who helped identify the wounds, said it was probably not a war weapon, but the sort of sharp knife or dagger any workman might have carried.


  17. Speranza
    18 | February 6, 2013 8:42 pm

    He lived in very violent times, and these deaths would not have been pretty or quick.


  18. buzzsawmonkey
    19 | February 6, 2013 8:44 pm

    Now that they’ve found and moved the body, they’ll have to take down the sign that says “Plantagenet on Premises.”


  19. 20 | February 6, 2013 8:48 pm

    @ Dolphin:

    History gives a guide to what the future holds. Patterns repeat themselves.


  20. Speranza
    21 | February 6, 2013 8:48 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Now that they’ve found and moved the body, they’ll have to take down the sign that says “Plantagenet on Premises.”

    Lol.I would hope that they would have reburied him in Westminster Abbey. hey there are monarchs buried there (Edward I and Henry V) who were a lot crueler then Richard III. Henry VIII by the way is buried in St. George Chapel in Windsor Castle.


  21. Speranza
    22 | February 6, 2013 8:49 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Dolphin:
    History gives a guide to what the future holds. Patterns repeat themselves.

    I became a history buff when I was a little boy.


  22. buzzsawmonkey
    23 | February 6, 2013 8:50 pm

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats…

    —Elvis Costello, “Beyond Belief”


  23. coldwarrior
    24 | February 6, 2013 8:50 pm

    jeeze, that pic in the OP looks exactly like my grandad on my mom’s side. they were english and protestant.


  24. Speranza
    25 | February 6, 2013 8:51 pm

    There is one person who used to post here that I wish would come back if only for this particular thread because she was and is a British history buff.


  25. buzzsawmonkey
    26 | February 6, 2013 8:53 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Did you listen to “The Vicar of Bray” above? There are a lot of references in each verse to catchwords/issues of that period, only some of which I can get.


  26. Speranza
    27 | February 6, 2013 8:53 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    Why do I think Jimmy Hoffa when I read ‘found under a parking lot’.

    Jimmy Hoffa’s loud mouth thuggish son Jimmy Hoffa Jr. is one day going to wind up like his Dad. The fates doe not deal kindly with demagogic, loud mouth, bullies.


  27. Speranza
    28 | February 6, 2013 8:53 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Did you listen to “The Vicar of Bray” above? There are a lot of references in each verse to catchwords/issues of that period, only some of which I can get.

    No I am going to listen to it soon though.


  28. Speranza
    29 | February 6, 2013 8:54 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    jeeze, that pic in the OP looks exactly like my grandad on my mom’s side. they were english and protestant.

    What is OP?


  29. Speranza
    30 | February 6, 2013 8:56 pm

    I can only shudder thinking about how politically correct British schools how teach British history.


  30. coldwarrior
    31 | February 6, 2013 8:56 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    jeeze, that pic in the OP looks exactly like my grandad on my mom’s side. they were english and protestant.

    What is OP?

    original post…your post, as it were.


  31. Speranza
    32 | February 6, 2013 8:56 pm

    @Buzzsawmonkey
    I recognized a reference to James I.


  32. Speranza
    33 | February 6, 2013 8:57 pm

    @ coldwarrior:
    The portrait of Richard II?


  33. huckfunn
    34 | February 6, 2013 8:59 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    He lived in very violent times, and these deaths would not have been pretty or quick.

    95% of the wars in human history have been fought with the blade, the point and the blunt instrument at close quarters. Talk about the horrors of war. Imagine thousands killed and wounded in an afternoon by those methods. The wounded would most likely die the slow death of infection. No anesthesia or antiseptics.


  34. Speranza
    35 | February 6, 2013 9:00 pm

    Richard I (the Lionheart) was King of England for 10 years and spent only 6 months of his reign actually in England.


  35. 36 | February 6, 2013 9:00 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Strictly speaking, the Hanoverians and the Windsors are the same family; they just changed their name during WWI, if memory serves.

    Correct. The Windsor’s were originally Saxe-Coburg Gotha and being it is a German name, it was changed to Windsor for patriotic reasons in 1917.

    I wonder if Edward VIII would have changed it back, had he remained King.


  36. coldwarrior
    37 | February 6, 2013 9:00 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    The portrait of Richard II?

    III, yes.


  37. 38 | February 6, 2013 9:01 pm

    @ huckfunn:

    The Romans lost 50,000 in one day at Cannae. That was in the 200 BC. Just think what that 50,000 would be in today’s numbers.


  38. 39 | February 6, 2013 9:01 pm

    @ Speranza:

    He was more Aquitanian-French than English.


  39. buzzsawmonkey
    40 | February 6, 2013 9:02 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    I can only shudder thinking about how politically correct British schools how teach British history.

    When I was a kid over there we used to have “Kings and Queens” cards that we used to trade. I think I still have them somewhere or other in an old tobacco pouch; you got them at the sweet shop with some purchase or other. They went from somewhere around Eleanor of Aquitaine up to the present day.

    There were also trading cards for old airplanes, bicycles, and automobiles. Each of these would have a picture on the front and a short paragraph describing what was depicted. You learned a lot from these things.

    We also had some things called “Jackdaw Packets”—which, I think, still exist and can be found online. They were envelopes which contained a number of paper facsimiles of documents relating to a particular incident or period—I had one from the Plague and Fire of London, and one about the Gunpowder Plot—documents, broadside ballads, warrants, etc.—along with some summary/study guide/question material. The facsimiles really gave you a feeling of connection to the event. Neat stuff.


  40. Speranza
    41 | February 6, 2013 9:02 pm

    huckfunn wrote:

    95% of the wars in human history have been fought with the blade, the point and the blunt instrument at close quarters. Talk about the horrors of war. Imagine thousands killed and wounded in an afternoon by those methods. The wounded would most likely die the slow death of infection. No anesthesia or antiseptics.

    Arms and legs cut or hacked off, skulls cleaved through with axes, mace or broadsword, felons hanged without the drop method so they slowly strangled, traitors hanged, drawn and quartered (also castrated), heretics burned alive at the stake, minor crimes punished with ear cropping, -- it wasn’t for the squeamish.


  41. huckfunn
    42 | February 6, 2013 9:02 pm

    All Quiet on the Western Front (the 1930 original) now on TCM.


  42. 43 | February 6, 2013 9:05 pm

    @ Speranza:

    This is what Обама, the Demo☭rats, and the Left want.


  43. Speranza
    44 | February 6, 2013 9:05 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    He was more Aquitanian-French than English.

    Richard II (reigned from 1377 -- 1399) was the first King of England who used English as his first language. Edward I was the first King of England since the Norman Conquest in 1066 who could speak some English. The Black Death which wiped out a good part of the Anglo-Norman ruling class actually helped English become the first language of the Plantagenet Court.


  44. Speranza
    45 | February 6, 2013 9:05 pm

    Macker wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    This is what Обама, the Demo☭rats, and the Left want.

    No he prefers an American Gulag.


  45. Speranza
    46 | February 6, 2013 9:06 pm

    huckfunn wrote:

    All Quiet on the Western Front (the 1930 original) now on TCM.

    Lew Ayers was in it.


  46. Speranza
    47 | February 6, 2013 9:07 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ huckfunn:
    The Romans lost 50,000 in one day at Cannae. That was in the 200 BC. Just think what that 50,000 would be in today’s numbers.

    I thought it was 70,000. Either way it was an enormous number but like the Soviets in 1941, they formed new armies (Legions).


  47. huckfunn
    48 | February 6, 2013 9:07 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    huckfunn wrote:

    All Quiet on the Western Front (the 1930 original) now on TCM.

    Lew Ayers was in it.

    The boots.


  48. Speranza
    49 | February 6, 2013 9:09 pm

    @ huckfunn:
    I read that book in High School. A great read.


  49. buzzsawmonkey
    50 | February 6, 2013 9:10 pm

    huckfunn wrote:

    All Quiet on the Western Front (the 1930 original) now on TCM.

    There’s a fantastic film I saw, years ago—forget where—called “Life Under the Czars” or something like that, from about 1929. It was a Soviet silent propaganda film showing Russia as it was just before WWI. I got to see the sort of mud-floored hut my grandfather probably was born in; a picture of one of the Duma leaders who was also the leader of the Black Hundreds, the Russian KKK-like antisemitic organization that fomented pogroms.

    It also showed some of the preparations for WWI; the manufacture of shells and huge cannon, and the troops going into a completely ordinary field and starting to dig the trenches they would later have to defend.

    It was amazing stuff to see.


  50. Speranza
    51 | February 6, 2013 9:13 pm

    Henry VIII was descended from the Plantagenet’s through his mother, Elizabeth of York was the daughter of Edward IV and niece of Richard III. Henry VII (Henry VIII’s father) had Plantagent blood in him through his father’s side but it was “illegitimate” through his father Jasper Tudor and mother Margaret Beaufort). Henry VII (Henry Tudor, the Earl of Richmond) claimed the throne after Bosworth Field through “right of conquest” meaning that God wanted him to be King because God granted him the victory.


  51. Speranza
    52 | February 6, 2013 9:17 pm

    Juan Williams shilling for Obama on Hannity right now. Shocker!


  52. Speranza
    53 | February 6, 2013 9:21 pm

    I wish Michelle Malkin could just speak softly and firmly like Krauthammer and stop shouting and being snarky. She does make good points but her presentation is awful, it is attack, attack, attack.


  53. Speranza
    54 | February 6, 2013 9:22 pm

    Well I killed my own thread.


  54. huckfunn
    55 | February 6, 2013 9:25 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    It also showed some of the preparations for WWI; the manufacture of shells and huge cannon, and the troops going into a completely ordinary field and starting to dig the trenches they would later have to defend.

    It was amazing stuff to see.

    I’ve always been a history buff. WWI and the 20 years leading up to it are for me the most fascinating. Total war fought with 19th century tactics and 20th century technology. Bad outcome.


  55. Speranza
    56 | February 6, 2013 9:26 pm

    The Centennial anniversary of World War I will be next year. For too many people World War I is as distant in their minds as the Napoleonic Wars.


  56. Speranza
    57 | February 6, 2013 9:27 pm

    huckfunn wrote:

    I’ve always been a history buff. WWI and the 20 years leading up to it are for me the most fascinating. Total war fought with 19th century tactics and 20th century technology. Bad outcome.

    20th century diplomacy (including the two World Wars as well as the Cold War) has always been so interesting to me.


  57. buzzsawmonkey
    58 | February 6, 2013 9:30 pm

    huckfunn wrote:

    I’ve always been a history buff. WWI and the 20 years leading up to it are for me the most fascinating. Total war fought with 19th century tactics and 20th century technology. Bad outcome.

    John Dos Passos’ history of WWI, “Mr. Wilson’s War,” is a very good read. Dos Passos wrote it, IIRC, when he was already turning away from the squashy leftism of his youth towards the hard conservatism which marked his later years. The history has a certain resonance in that Dos Passos was first a volunteer ambulance driver, and later a doughboy, in WWI. He was not a fan of Wilson.


  58. buzzsawmonkey
    59 | February 6, 2013 9:35 pm

    @ huckfunn:

    Another book of interest is “The Enemy at His Pleasure,” by S. An-Ski. An-Ski was the author of the Yiddish play “The Dybbuk”; he did a fact-finding trip following WWI on what had been the Eastern Front, inquiring about the war and postwar atrocities which were visited on the Jewish villages there.

    You realize, reading it, that everything that we hear about what happened in Eastern Europe under the Nazis, with the exception of the ghettos and the labor and death camps, happened there only twenty years earlier; the random roundups of people who were then burned to death in their own synagogue, the rapes and pillaging, etc. It’s overwhelming.

    It makes you realize, grudgingly, why there was so much appeasement of Hitler. WWI had been so horrific, in so many ways, to the civilian population as well as to the soldiers who had fought it, and was still so fresh in people’s memory after 20 years, that they really felt almost anything was preferable to the risk of going through that again.


  59. huckfunn
    60 | February 6, 2013 9:35 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    20th century diplomacy (including the two World Wars as well as the Cold War) has always been so interesting to me.

    The total disconnect between the monarchies and the real world is amazing. Kaiser Bill truly believed in his Divine Right to rule. SURPRISE! Cousin Nicki was equally surprised.


  60. huckfunn
    61 | February 6, 2013 9:36 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Both of those are now on my reading list. Thanks.


  61. Speranza
    62 | February 6, 2013 9:38 pm

    huckfunn wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    20th century diplomacy (including the two World Wars as well as the Cold War) has always been so interesting to me.

    The total disconnect between the monarchies and the real world is amazing. Kaiser Bill truly believed in his Divine Right to rule. SURPRISE! Cousin Nicki was equally surprised.

    Too many fools write that it would have been better if Germany had won World War I. Imperial Germany’s plans if they won won World War I were imperialism in the extreme.

    Big mistake was not forcing the German Army leadership to sign the armistice, the allies did not make that mistake in 1945.


  62. Speranza
    63 | February 6, 2013 9:40 pm

    I much prefer David Limbaugh to Rush Limbaugh.


  63. Speranza
    65 | February 6, 2013 9:45 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    OT:
    Catholic Bishop On Planned Parenthood’s Eugenicist Founder Margaret Sanger: “Barack Obama Was Precisely The Sort Of Unfit Child She And Her Allies Would Want To Eliminate”…

    It doesn’t matter. For the Left she ought to be a saint so therefore she is one.


  64. buzzsawmonkey
    66 | February 6, 2013 9:48 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    It doesn’t matter. For the Left she ought to be a saint so therefore she is one.

    Maybe if they saw this picture: Margaret Sanger preaches eugenics at a KKK rally.


  65. brookly red
    67 | February 6, 2013 9:52 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    OT:

    Catholic Bishop On Planned Parenthood’s Eugenicist Founder Margaret Sanger: “Barack Obama Was Precisely The Sort Of Unfit Child She And Her Allies Would Want To Eliminate”…

    The Lord chose to punish us with this baby. And so it is.


  66. Speranza
    68 | February 6, 2013 9:52 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    It doesn’t matter. For the Left she ought to be a saint so therefore she is one.
    Maybe if they saw this picture: Margaret Sanger preaches eugenics at a KKK rally.

    Revolting!


  67. brookly red
    69 | February 6, 2013 9:59 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    It doesn’t matter. For the Left she ought to be a saint so therefore she is one.
    Maybe if they saw this picture: Margaret Sanger preaches eugenics at a KKK rally.

    Revolting!

    And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

    This is for real dude…


  68. brookly red
    70 | February 6, 2013 10:06 pm

    Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

    is it getting warm in here?


  69. brookly red
    71 | February 6, 2013 10:08 pm

    Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

    OK, there said it… have a good night everyone


  70. coldwarrior
    72 | February 6, 2013 10:34 pm

    speranza, i wanted to contribute to this thread. real life got in the way. well done on the OP.


  71. 73 | February 6, 2013 10:40 pm

    @ Speranza:

    People have differences in opinions on WWI. I view it as an Imperialist pissing match.


  72. coldwarrior
    74 | February 6, 2013 10:46 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    People have differences in opinions on WWI. I view it as an Imperialist pissing match.

    a continuation of the 30 years war.

    or what europe always does.

    ww2 and american force ends pussy assed wars in europe.


  73. darkwords
    75 | February 6, 2013 10:46 pm

    Obama and Hilary. What does it matter?

    A Canadian friend and colleague who wholeheartedly approves of what happened now jokingly refers to Americans as “burger-eating surrender monkeys.”


  74. huckfunn
    76 | February 6, 2013 10:54 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:

    People have differences in opinions on WWI. I view it as an Imperialist pissing match.

    Exactly. All of the inbred monarchs of Europe waging war against their cousins on a whim. Their officer corps were made up of the nobility who weren’t trained or experienced and had no more empathy for their troops than they had for a stable hand. They burned off a generation without a thought.


  75. coldwarrior
    77 | February 6, 2013 10:57 pm

    @ huckfunn:

    saw a 74 caddy…..

    catch me on the next thread.

    done here


  76. Speranza
    78 | February 7, 2013 6:34 am

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ huckfunn:
    saw a 74 caddy…..
    catch me on the next thread.
    done here

    I thought this was going to be the OOT.


  77. Speranza
    79 | February 7, 2013 6:35 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    People have differences in opinions on WWI. I view it as an Imperialist pissing match.

    WWI was the fault of one nation -- Hohenzollern Germany.


  78. Speranza
    80 | February 7, 2013 6:36 am

    Austria-Hungary would never have declared war on Serbia without Germany’s backing.


  79. texasam7
    81 | February 7, 2013 6:43 am

    Great post, Speranza! I’m a medieval history buff, and I’ve seen the tombs of Edward I and Henry VII. Although the historical plays are good reading, Shakespeare comes off a little like Oliver Stone, sacrificing accuracy for story.


  80. Speranza
    82 | February 7, 2013 4:28 pm

    It is hard to judge a King who reigned for little more than two years, yet it can be said that Richard III actually was shaping up well as a monarch until he was killed in battle. He worked for reconciliation between the Yorkists (his own) and Lancastrian factions of the House of Plantagenet, he had Henry VI (a Lancastrian) who had been murdered on his (Richard’s) brother Edward IV’s orders reburied at Windsor with full regal honors, and he was always popular in Northern England where he used to be Edward IV’s Lieutenant of the North. Nevertheless there is little doubt that he could be as ruthless as anyone else in his time period and no more ruthless then the man who defeated him Henry Tudor aka Henry VII.


  81. Speranza
    83 | February 7, 2013 4:30 pm

    texasam7 wrote:

    Great post, Speranza! I’m a medieval history buff, and I’ve seen the tombs of Edward I and Henry VII. Although the historical plays are good reading, Shakespeare comes off like a little like Oliver Stone, sacrificing accuracy for story.

    Thank you. This thread should have stayed up longer. Shakespeare was a Tudor and Stuart propagandist. I saw the royal tombs at Westminster Abbey and at St. George Chapel in Windsor.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David