There were many good things about this programme. Dr. Janina Ramirez joined Dr. John Ashdown-Hill and the lawyer Bertram Fields. All three have studied the late medieval period in detail and in different ways.

Then there was Dr. David Starkey. He is a renowned expert on the 1509-1603 period but tends to derive his views on earlier monarchs such as Richard III from his admiration for the second and the last “Tudor” monarchs. Two years ago, in a BBC2 (“Tudor” Court season) discussion on Anne Boleyn, he totally “owned” Alison Weir, his only adversary. Here, however, he treated More (a joke in historical terms) as a Fifth Gospel although More was only five in 1483.

He described Lord Hastings as not having had a trial, although logic and evidence make this highly unlikely, and freely deduced from this false conclusion. He relied on More’s post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption of Richard’s past conduct being part of some Masterplan, although Ramirez and Ashdown-Hill were of the opposite view. They raised the importance of Edward IV’s bigamy, which he didn’t. He also spoke of Tyrrell’s “confession”, although we now know, thanks to Susan Leas (quoted in https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/perkin-again/) that this post-dates not merely Tyrrell’s life but that of Henry VII because the latter never referred to it in the (nearly) seven years by which he survived Tyrrell. Dr. Ashdown-Hill was able to mention that the illegitimacy of Edward V and his brother gave Richard a much reduced motive for disposing of them.

Many of you will have read Annette Carson’s “Maligned King”, particularly the chapters on Richard’s conduct in April-June 1483 before Stillington’s bombshell interrupts the plans to crown Edward V, removing all sources and then putting them back in chronological order. This was criticised in some denialist quarters, only for Dr. Josephine Wilkinson to carry out the same exercise with identical results.

Dr. Starkey, should limit his appearances a little more to his area of expertise – the “Tudors” – and preserve his reputation from the damage it suffered in the 1984 “Trial”. This era in particular looks to be in good hands among the younger generation, free of preconceptions as they are, however,


Subscribe to my newsletter

6 responses to “Review of ‘The “Princes” in the Tower’ (Channel 4)”

  1. *
    *
    *
    *
    Dear Mister Starkey:

    Please be advised that Thomas More’s History is not a primary source. It cannot be used as such, regardless the man is a Catholic saint.

    If one of your undergraduate students tried using a secondary source as a foundation to their argument as you attempt to do, you’d crucify him or her, so why are you doing it?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The Pope made Thomas More a saint and a martyr for being executed following his refusal to accept HVIII’s Act of Supremacy, not for writing good history. The difference is not a subtle one…

    Like

  3. Iris… i do agree!!! 🙂

    Earlier tonite Dan Jones
    revisited the England of
    King John i do hear, with
    armour & clothes to match,

    Does DJ have a Tory bias?

    Like

  4. […] was still pointing (a very shaky) finger at Tyrell in the ‘Princes  in the Tower’ documentary that, rather ungraciously, appeared at the time of Richard’s […]

    Like

  5. […] So this makes his analysis as flawed as the comments he made during a programme on the “princes” during Richard III’s reinterment in 2015—when he stated that Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were at the Tower of London because ‘something was up’ regarding the trial of James Tyrrell. However, James Tyrrell was not tried at the Tower but rather the Guildhall, and he was not charged with regicide nor is there any record of an actual confession. […]

    Like

Leave a comment