September 2005

13 September 2005

Members will have seen the 'Monarchy' programme on Channel 4 on Monday, 12th September, in which David Starkey gave us his views on the House of York. Whilst it wasn't as bad as we might have expected after 1983, it warrants a reply and the following letter has been sent to the editors of the Radio Times, the Daily Telegraph, History Today and BBC History as well, of course, as to the authorities at Channel 4. I have purposely not 'slagged off' David Starkey as that would bring us down to his level, but I have pointed out that it would have been nice if he had gotten his facts right and that the programme was full of half truths and innuendo.

Phil Stone,
Chairman

Dear Sir

Re Monarchy - 12.09.05

How sad it is to see David Starkey perpetuating the old myths and distortions about the House of York and about Richard III in particular. I refer, of course, to the first programme in his second series of 'Monarchy”.

Surely this mix of untruths, half truths and innuendo was unworthy of someone wishing to be taken seriously as an historian? With incomplete arguments and unsubstantiated statements, he continued to expound the black history begun by the Tudors in order to justify their taking of the throne. At other times, it wasn’t so much what Dr Starkey said as what he didn’t say, leaving out the full facts, that made his argument seem all the more damning.

Richard III was no saint - he was a medieval king, after all - but neither can it be proved that he was a villain. Contrary to Dr Starkey's statement, it isn't known that Richard was in Tower of London on the night that Henry VI died, since we do not know on which night Henry did die. Contemporary evidence is conflicting. As for the deaths of the sons of Edward IV, the ‘Princes in the Tower’, there were several others with a far greater need to have them kept out of the way. Henry VII remains a prime suspect, though indeed, there is no evidence that the boys were killed at all.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it is rather sad when someone is put forward as an historian and then finds it necessary to ignore the facts in order to propagate misguided and ill-founded views. If Dr Starkey does not want to do the research for himself, for what he is probably being paid for these series, he can surely afford to have someone do it for him.


January 2005

£1m Lottery Funding for Bosworth

Painting by Graham Turner

The Heritage Lottery Fund has announced almost £1m worth of funding to Leicestershire County Council for a project to 'uncover the true battlefield through a three year programme of archaeological and topographical studies. Forensic techniques will be used to help with the detective work and determine the true battlefield. Metal detecting will also be used to determine the point where the armies met, known as the "clash point" '. The funding, £990,000, will also be used to update and develop the visitor centre which will become a registered museum displaying any finds from the archaeological work

The Winter 2004 issue of the Bulletin published an article by Paul Startin of the Bosworth Battlefield Visitor Centre summarising the County Council's strategy towards excavating the site based on the report of the preliminary findings by Glenn Foard of the Battlefield Trust. His survey was carried out around the areas of Ambion Hill and Redemore Plain, the latter identified by Peter Foss and from which, members may recall, Mr Foard has already conceived a conjectual account of the battle

The story was picked up enthusiastically by the media on 21 January with reports on radio, television and in the broadsheets. Channel 4 featured a two-minute segment from Bosworth complete with a re-enactment group fighting in the background, a clip from the Olivier film of Richard III and an interview with Glen Foard. They also reported that a mere £200k would be spent on the archaeological work. Stories ran in The Independant, The Times and The Guardian.

However, reports were confusing. Channel 4 reported that the areas to be examined were 'Ambion Hill, an Old Roman Road a mile away and Fenny Drayton'. The Times, on the other hand, reported on Michael Jones' theory that the battle took place at Atherstone and went on to write that Mr Foard was 'satisfied that Dr Jones was incorrect' from which it could be inferred that the Atherstone/Fenny Drayton site may not be examined.

Another ambiguous area relates to Richard's final resting place. The HLF press release refers to the studies shedding 'some light on the ultimate resting place of Richard III, something which until now has been subject to many myths and legends'. No reference was made to the fact that the fate of Richard's body only became uncertain after the Reformation and the disolution of the Grey Friar's monastry in Leicester. The Society will endeavour to obtain some clarity on these issues.

What was encouraging from these reports was the political correctness in their treatment of Richard with none of the preconceptions of the monster steriotype we are all so familiar with. For example, The Times commented that Shakespeare 'demonised' Richard. The Guardian's reporter asked the Society for a comment on the funding and the sound byte they chose to publish closed their article: 'Sadly nothing can change the outcome, treachery and betrayal that led a brave man to his death - the last king of England to die on the battlefield'.