Monday, 15 July 2013

Stop Bullying Richard!

This has been a tremendously exciting year.On February 4th--this would have been my late mother's birthday--the remains found in Leicester were formerly identified as those of Richard III. In this house, everyone cried. He is the most maligned man this country has ever known. He was quintessentially English, and though it's been over 500 years, he has a huge following of loyal supporters.

I take great exception to foreigners hijacking our royal heroes, and then trying to convince us that they know more about them than we do. Yesterday, an American gentleman who looks like he's been overdosing on Big Macs and hasn't had a good fettle in years denounced Richard III as a "big piece of shit". He was supported by an American writer of Mills & Boon-style bodice-rippers--you know the ilk, they usually look like the back of  a bus and write in the first person as some nubile wench--who along with a couple of others began lambasting me because they think I have turned Richard III and his brother Edward IV into Liberace and Scott! And please--don't use words like "sodomy". IF, and it's a big IF, it happened, just remember there are more ways of cooking an egg than dropping it into hot fat!

Not true, Dickon (or should that be Dickoff?) Clarke and Susie Ticklebottom! This is a classic case of what my late father-in-law called mistaking the dog-muck for the chippolatas! 

What I said WAS that in my opinion, and looking at this from a psychological angle, the Duke of Somerset had the hots for Edward, and probably vice-versa, and that Richard III loved the Duke of Buckingham. I don't have Richard and Henry Stafford jumping into bed with each other. It IS possible to love someone without sex being involved. I love my cats, but I don't have sex with them! 

I don't do this very often--in fact, I do it never. but for your prejudiced benefit, here's an extract from the book:

[     Gregory Woods, claimed to be “Britain’s first professor of gay and lesbian studies”, made an interesting observation regarding this matter:

We have this strict binary opposition between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but most people throughout history have not thought in those terms…Men and women didn’t communicate on equal terms, and women were not educated. So if you were a man—particularly a powerful man—only other men were going to understand you or be able to offer stimulating conversation. That’s why intimacy came primarily from other men. Who is surprised that it spilled over into sex, sometimes?

What also should be considered is Richard’s slight disability—not the hunchback promoted by the Tudor propagandists, but on account of what we now know was scoliosis or curvature of the spine. This may not have been noticeable while he was wearing clothes, but rejection or ridicule in the boudoir at some stage could have caused stress-related impotence which might have disappeared once he was in the company of another “non-comformist”, such as he may have regarded himself. Finally, there is the question of Richard’s high moral stance—the fact that, warned by advisers and physicians to refrain from having sex with his sickly wife for fear of contracting whatever malady ailed her, Richard may not have considered a physical relationship with another man adulterous—that is, of course, if his friendships with Buckingham and Lovell did progress beyond the platonic. [4] ]

In closing, might I add that no matter what I or any other Richard III supporters write about our hero, Mrs Ticklebottom and Big Mac will pooh-pooh it. I haven't read any of her work, nor would wish to if all she does is make Richard III look like some evil creep. She harps on that there is no proof which team Richard batted for--then in the next breath has him murdering children when there's no proof of that, either. I wasn't there, love, and neither were you! This poor man has suffered enough over the centuries, and we have now turned a corner where he can now start being shown some of the respect he deserves. We know what he looked like, and it's only a matter of time before they open that sarcophagus in Westminster and, by using his DNA, hopefully prove that the bones there are not those of the princes in the Tower.

In the meantime, stick to writing about your own people and leave our heritage alone. Might I suggest an "all powerful" story about the old lady with the prolapse in "Days Of Our Lives", as this seems to be the level you are aiming for? 


  1. No one was bullying Richard, and no amount of childish name-calling will hide the fact that you're really quite xenophobic. Susan Higginbotham and Karen Clark are exceptionally well-read, well thought of people who're very highly respected in the History Community. They take a well balanced view of Richard III and the times he lived in, taking the good with the bad without trying to pass the bad off as something other than what it is.

    As for the most maligned man in Britain? Richard has an entire. global society fighting to white-wash his ever niggle and bad point. So there's not quite the need to play the victim card with him (and it would probably make the real Richard vomit, anyway).

    You, on the other hand, might be better off sticking with making up nonsense about movie stars no one cares about. It seems you're quite good at that.

  2. Calling Richard "a complete piece of shit" was very polite, I guess. Susan Ticklebottom does NOT take a balanced view--she accuses him of murder. And it was Richard Clarke, not Karen--unless he's so consumed with hatred that he doesn't know what sex he is. As for movie stars that no one cares about--get out of your blinkered sidings, Hannah. Go and get laid!

  3. Susan didn't call Richard a "piece of shit". Someone called him that, but was quoting another Historian who said: "Richard III was a complete shit, but weren't they all". I'll admit my mistake over the Clark issue: it was Richard, not Karen Clark (but she is another of the rational academics who's mere level headed existence seems to raise to ire of the Brides of Gloucester).

    Susan, myself and many others include Richard in the list of likeliest suspects. That's because he is one of the likeliest subjects. There is no getting around that. He had a lot to gain; little to lose and a valid claim to the throne of his own. Get over it!

    Oh, and Susan has never written a bodice ripper in her life. Get your facts in that respect right at least.

  4. Yes, it was Richard Clark. Susan lays the blame on Richard in one of her books. Things got out of hand when he called Richard that. The four suspects are: Richard, Henry Tudor, Lord Howard, and Buckingham. I tend to favour the latter.