The New Murrey and Blue blog

Which historian do you love or hate the most….?

, ,
, , ,
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chronica-Maiora-Thomas-Walsingham-1376-1422/dp/184383510X/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=walsingham+chronicle&qid=1593102051&s=books&sr=1-2

Prompted by the opinions of two friends on what they thought of certain historians, I thought it would be interesting to see which are named by those who read Murrey & Blue. So, ladies and gentlemen, who is your favourite/most loathed historian (alive or dead), and why?

My choice takes me back to the 14th/15th centuryies. I name and shame Thomas Walsingham, who is praised as the “source” of much concerning the reigns of RII and HIV. I’m only thankful he didn’t live long enough to set about Richard III as well! A source? In my opinion he was a biased, manipulative, woman-fearing/hating, waspish so-and-so who wasn’t very particular about the facts. Hmm, sounds like a certain more modern Tudor-loving historian to me. Can’t remember his name, but I think it begins with S——! 🤔

Anyway, Walsingham gets my thumbs down. Now, over to you—

Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. Esther Avatar
    Esther

    Is Thomas of Walsingham the same character who invented the “red-hot poker” story about Edward II? I know that Richard II wanted to get Edward II canonized, so at the time, unjustified suffering on earth made a candidate look good.

    Also, speaking of the historian with the name starting with S………, I apologize in advance if this has already been posted:

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/03/uk/david-starkey-dropped-by-publisher-resigns-cambridge-college-scli-intl-gbr/index.html

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  2. amma19542019 Avatar
    amma19542019

    Lady V, how about one of each, Alexander Rose for my fave (elegant writer, witty but with a wry manner, never knee slapping, the sort you would love to sit with on a late afternoon, maybe overlooking the Bay of Naples, while he just discourses, on anything), and for my um, dislike, it would be the Underwood and Jones team who laid out a devastating profile of a relentlessly avaricious noble, given to personal and political intrigues, but refused to acknowledge this glaring reality that they went to great lengths to document!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  3. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Thomas More’s “History of King Richard III” quickly comes to mind as one of my most-loathed historians/histories.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. amma19542019 Avatar
      amma19542019

      Had a thought Karen, today being Richard’s birthday, anyone who knows me sends me a “Happy Birthday to your boy Richard” with assorted emoji’s and other comments, do you think ANYONE remembers Tom More on his birthday?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. viscountessw Avatar
        viscountessw

        I can honestly say I don’t, Amma! ☺

        Liked by 1 person

  4. amma19542019 Avatar
    amma19542019

    Viscountessw, I am feeling badly, I give old Tom such a hard time … I DO try to remind myself that the guy DID abandon his project on Richard (I won’t speculate on what he actually called it as he never finished it nor published it), he did shove it aside and never even bothered to mention it among his works (nod to Eliz. Bradley for these details, she has had alot more exposure to More in college than I had) and if various scholars are right that More was just having a petty, hissy fit about Vergil (due to competition? envy? elitist posturing by More?) and Erasmus had to soothe Vergil’s frail psyche by telling him that it would pass with More, not to worry, well … none of these details tell me the Richard project meant squat to More, so why in heaven’s name should I take his abandoned scribbling serious?

    another thing that does make me cut the poor guy a break, never trust any Tudor, never think they had a shred of integrity, never believe a damn thing they say, and that silly man (but a lawyer!) did and it cost him his head. Executed 52 years, to the day, 6 July, that Richard had his coronation. More would never know that his heirs would patch together this cast aside project and run off to get it published, all he knew, at the block, was ‘damn Tudors!’

    so, most of the time I am more irritated by modern scholars and historians who should know better than play games with an unfinished, abandoned pseudo manuscript than I am with More who paid a high price for his dalliance with this “Defender of the Faith.”

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment