British Heritage: DECEMBER/JANUARY 1999 Letters

 | British Heritage Editorials  | 0 comments  | Print This Post  | Email This Post

Letters - Submit

British Heritage

In response to your request to hear from readers concerning coverage of British history (’Historical Spark’, August/September 1998, page 4), I’d like to say that I wait with anticipation for each new issue and locate the articles on history and read them first. I do not have the opportunity to travel outside the United States, so I do all my ‘travelling’ to far-away places through magazines. The history of a place is much more enjoyable than just a few snapshots of present-day locations. How did the present-day place get to be what it is? That is thrilling! Please continue to publish articles on the history of places and the people who are associated with those places.

The issue titled ‘The Age of Arthur’ was the most enjoyable I have read in a long while. The articles, along with the pictures of places associated with Arthur, gave me a better understanding of the Arthurian age than anything I have studied or read on the subject. I was especially grateful for the maps that listed some of the place names mentioned in the articles. I am not all that familiar with places in the British Isles and can only learn by your maps. Present-day maps do not list many of the historical names and places, so your maps are much studied. I would like a more complete map in each issue, possibly marked with each place name mentioned in the issue.

Please continue your coverage of British history. After all, isn’t that what heritage really is?

Linda Austin
Florence, Alabama

WINTERY DISCONTENT

When I first saw Peter Kilby’s ‘The Princes in the Tower’ in the October 1998 issue (page 5), I thought, ‘Oh dear, yet another person who won’t bother to actually research the topic.’ But, having been well pleased with the content of your articles thus far in my subscription, I decided to give it a chance. Bad decision, and I suspect that I’m not the only reader lamenting a decision not to just turn the page and give it a miss.

The reign of Richard III, including his ascension to the throne, takes on an entirely different light when viewed outside the influence of the propaganda machine of the Tudor monarchy, striving desperately to justify its existence. Richard was formally and unanimously upheld as the rightful king by Parliament following an assertion that the marriage of his brother Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville was illegitimate, thereby barring Prince Edward from the succession. Whether the assertion is true is a matter of some speculation, for Henry Tudor was very effective in destroying almost all copies of the documents by which Richard became king.

A more open and scholarly look at those records that can be trusted to be relatively free of the taint of Tudor propaganda reveals a very different picture of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester and later King of England. He was an able administrator, a competent general and warrior (so much for being a hunchback; at Bosworth he managed to slay Henry Tudor’s standard-bearer, Sir William Brandon, with a single stroke and unhorsed Sir John Cheney, accounted to be the strongest man on the field), a devout supporter of the church, as well as the founder of colleges and the originator of the college of arms.

The selected illustrations were even less accurate and were quite misleading. They showed a further lack of research into the subject.

Readers interested in a more open, and quite likely more accurate, view of Richard III are invited to contact the Richard III Society, 4702 Dryades Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, or visit the website of the American branch. The Society lists numerous sources of reading on Richard III, the Wars of the Roses, and the 15th century in general.

Jason Asbell
Melbourne, Florida

Editor’s note: The events surrounding the disappearance of the Princes certainly provide the raw material for lively and vigorous debate. Will a general consensus ever be reached? Probably not, and we welcome informed opinions such as this, which cast further light on the subject. Until the debate is conclusively resolved, though, it seems rather premature to label Peter Kilby’s article ‘inaccurate’ because of its inclusion of anti-Ricardian quotes such as those by Sir Thomas More. Contrary opinions are what debate is all about. Also, the illustrations in question were chosen with the specific intent of documenting how the popular press has often maligned Richard through the use of historical inaccuracies. The captions clearly point out the misleading elements.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to