I hate-watched the latest crank documentary on the Princes in the Tower last night and I am mad about it for so many reasons. I will say, I was very entertained by the actually-respectable Dr. Henrike Lähnemann saying on camera that the only thing that could be definitely affirmed about a document issued by the chancellery of the Holy Roman Empire was that it was definitely written in the 15th century and authentically sealed. ...and then they ignored her. Also, the barrister who is supposedly this Professional Skeptic™ who will Dispassionately Evaluate Claims appears not to recognize the 15th-century equivalent of a scam email.

The fact that the documentary's conclusions are spurious and its methodology vacuous/absent has already been covered at some length here. But I'm still mad for other reasons, viz:

This documentary that supposedly is trying to convince its audience (?) just straight-up ignores the central question of identity

There is a lot of hand-waving and sleight-of-hand around the representation of people's qualifications. Ann Wroe, for instance, does have a DPhil from Oxford (1975). She has worked at The Economist since 1976. And if you haven't engaged with the field in 50 years...! The president of the Ricardian Society is represented as a "medieval historian." The Society's page has him as an "author and historian." Does he have any qualifications? who knows!!

This gets me to another thing I've been mad about before. The barrister says at the conclusion of the documentary that "History is for everyone" (true!) and that this means that anyone can just go off to archives and discover things and make field-changing discoveries. This is so laughably untrue that we have seen how wrong it is in the documentary! because Langley appears incapable of any sort of paleography at all! Seriously?? Seriously??? You're going to show us 15th-century documents in multiple languages and then the neatly typed-up translations that some poor graduate student probably did for you and then say that "anyone can do history"? HAHAHAHAHA but also this is no laughing matter as departments and degree programs and positions are being cut everywhere. I am livid. I'm also livid because professionally-trained historians everywhere (including self) are begging for funds to do the most basic functions of our work--attend conferences, go to archives--and applying for endless grants and self-funding what our institutions, if we have institutions, won't cover. And Philippa Langley gets £££ to swan about Europe with her barrister accomplice (paramour??) drinking good coffee and going misty-eyed over her own personal Richard III fantasies? I hate everything.

For many in the Richard III Society, including Philippa Langley, Richard’s “hunchback” was a slanderous Tudor invention, and the confirmation of his scoliosis was a blow—even, for Langley, a “personal [. . .] disaster.” The excavation forced Langley and the Society to shift tack, from denying any spinal difference, to insisting that scoliosis would not have actually impaired the royal body. Langley’s excavation account describes scoliosis as a “condition, not a disability,” while the Society’s website stresses the fact that the athlete Usain Bolt also has scoliosis to demonstrate that it “doesn’t necessarily limit physical capability.” This strategy recalls a line from Josephine Tey’s 1951 Ricardian novel The Daughter of Time, in which a detective investigating the murder of the Princes in the Tower speaks to an expert who claims Richard had ‘“no visible deformity. At least, none that mattered.”’ Deformity, disability: all must be minimized, framed as “not matter[ing],” if this Richard is to be claimed by the Ricardians.

More than Richard’s moral reputation is at stake in the Society’s engagement with his skeleton. The Ricardians’ resistance to the idea of a physically impaired Richard relates to an anxiety that a disabled or visibly “othered” royal body would be incompatible with their perceptions of medieval English kingship as muscular, masculine, warlike. Langley’s excavation account characterises Richard and his “era” in terms inflected by nostalgic, romantic medievalism. If Richard was ever harsh, this was simply a product of his being a prince in a “ruthless era;” these qualities, moreover, were balanced out by his considerable martial “fortitude” and “chivalry.” The Society’s Richard is a knight, a pseudo-Arthurian defender of the realm—perhaps, recalling the popular emphasis on Richard’s death in battle, the last real fighting English king.

— Rowan Wilson, Reading the “human braille”: Discourses of Ableism and Medievalism in the Reburial of Richard III

Looks like Philippa Langley might've done it again as she's written a new book about new evidence she and other historians have found that Edward V and Prince Richard of York actually escaped and were never murdered. Her book is out now in the UK and this is one of the many articles coming out ahead of the documentary that's getting ready to air in the UK this weekend and here in the US on PBS the 22nd, and from what I'm reading these new pieces of evidence does seem to point to the boys actually making it to Europe and that both those pretenders actually were them. One of new evidence found in the Netherlands is a written confession supposedly by Richard of York in Rome detailing how he and his brother escaped. The new evidence is coming from both Italy and France and has been authenticated to the correct time period during Henry VII's reign.

They're saying the new evidence has already changed some minds about this and I'll judge for myself when I watch the doc next week (as either the book doesn't have a US release date yet or my library isn't getting it) but Philippa already was able to find Richard III's remains and get him reburied, and this has been a long thing to clear up just like they did with proving that Shakespeare and others made him more monstrous than he was. My belief was that Richard III might've ordered the princes deaths (as that was common with monarchs and who they deem as threats to the throne) and then regretted it, but maybe so many of us have been wrong this whole time. Again this proves why the whole Wars of the Roses is one of my favorite historical time periods and things are still playing out.

Ian’s Blog 19th November 2023

I am now reading Philippa Langley’s new book about the missing Princes and have just watched the channel 4 documentary which tells us about the new evidence that has been discovered. I won’t go into too much detail but I will mention some of my thoughts about all of this.

I believe that Thomas Moore’s narrative about the murder of the Princes of Edward IV cannot be relied upon and I don’t believe he meant it to be used as true history. In fact I believe that he never finished writing it and it wasn’t published in his lifetime.

With respect to the bones found under the stairs at the Tower of London I think that they are highly unlikely to be from the period of the late 15th century and I find it hard to believe that the bodies of the Princes would be buried in such a location where there would be lots of people about to witness such a strange burial.

Two pretenders claiming to be the sons of Edward IV during the reign of Henry VII seems to me to be rather odd as opposed to a much more likely scenario that they were Edward V and his younger brother Richard. Why on earth would the Earl of Lincoln support an imposter if Edward V was dead. If Edward V was no longer alive then the Earl of Lincoln would be attempting to seize the throne for himself at the battle of Stoke as he had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry VII and I would argue that this Earl was legally entitled to be King if the sons of Edward IV were both dead.

Here is another thought. It seems very strange that after Henry VII made Richard of York sign a confession that he was actually called Perkin Warbeck, that he didn’t execute him straight away but allowed him to be treated well in his court. Was it because of his Queen who was the sister of Richard of York? 

I would imagine that some historians will find it hard to accept a rewrite of the history books but I expect that with the passage of time Philippa Langley’s discoveries will gradually be accepted as the true version of history. When I think about the actions of the people at the time in question then it makes much more sense if it was Edward V at the battle of Stoke and it was his brother Richard attempting to claim the throne from Henry VII.

It also needs to be stated that there was another Prince in the tower who was the son of George Duke of Clarence. Richard III did not imprison this Prince but Henry VII did and eventually had him executed.

"The Lost King"

directed by Stephen Frears

her reaction, I'm laughing so hard OMG

how can you be that ableist, it's insane 😭😭😭 she actually started crying, you just have to laugh about this

'The Lost King,' Athena Film Festival Review of a Superb Film

'The Lost King' is a wonderful film with an Oscar-worthy performance by Sally Hawkins which is based on a true story.

Sally Hawkins as Philippa Langley in The Lost King (courtesy of IFC films and Athena Film Festival) In the superb hybrid comedy-drama-mystery The Lost King, based on Philippa Langley and Michael Jones non-fiction book The King’s Grave: The Search for Richard III (2013) one can see a marvelous Frears film (director) discover information about Richard III beyond William Shakespeare’s titular play…

View On WordPress

Another reason to go to TIFF

Another reason to go to TIFF

Interesting article today about a new film about Philippa Langley. It’s brought to us by Jeff Pope and Steve Coogan, who were involved in two movies that I found excellent, “Stan and Ollie” and “Philomena.” Seems like this would have been the Richard Armitage vehicle we might have expected a decade ago. Ah, well.

View On WordPress

Monthly Reading Summary – December 2023

View On WordPress

just saying this to make myself angry but do you think in future thedas they’ll have the equivalent of the richard iii society for some of these bitches

It's 2024. Authors writing novels about the Wars of the Roses should be past referring to Henry VI as "mad Henry". Especially if they're Ricardians who end the novel with two pages where the protagonist/POV character foretells and decries the horribleness of Tudor-era ableism towards Richard III.

The author clearly understand that ableism is wrong and that "period accuracy" is no excuse for ableism. But still sees fit to mock Henry VI for his mental illness, to make it his main identity. Is it because ableism is okay when a Yorkist does it or when the victim is Lancastrian? Is it because ableism is okay if you're mocking someone with a severe mental illness instead of a physical disability?

↳ the children of Edward III & Philippa of Hainault (that survived infancy)

(requested by anonymous)

Finally got to see "The Lost King" and loved it!!! :D I've always loved most of Steve Coogan's movies he's written and this was another as it was a true story about Philippa Langley, the woman who after becoming fascinated with King Richard III's story started researching and ended up figuring out where he had been buried which had been a mystery for over 500 years. I remember when this news story broke in 2012 and they found his remains under a parking lot and then were finally able to give him a proper funeral and royal marker. This was all due to her and how she had to fight to get this to even happen as most thought she was a crazy fangirl. Sally Hawkins did a wonderful job as Philippa, Steve wrote this with his writing partner so well and played her ex-husband, great supporting cast, and loved they used the same actor Philippa saw in the Shakespeare play to also play Richard III as she kept seeing him everywhere and like he was guiding her to find him. Such a good movie and telling how this all happened.

Ian’s Blog 4th February 2024

I have recorded a song for Philippa Langley and it can be heard on youtube. Philippa has let me use some of her photos which I have made into a slideshow with the music of the song. Here is a link to it:-

The song was inspired by her research about the missing Princes and the latest issue of the Ricardian Bulletin.

She’s moved Ricardian mountains

And her search for the truth moves on

Though some will not believe her

For her I have written this song

okay but I forgot to mention that there's possible new Ricardian evidence being released this weekend so I'm ready for it

I'm sorry, but I keep thinking about that one Richard III maniac