Sunday Mirror

Just sent this to TV Critic Kevin Osullivan, so up himself, who made
ridiculous comments about the Channel 4 coverage in today's Sunday
Mirror newspaper

Calling Richard III "the hunch-backed monarch who murdered two children
to steal the top job" places you firmly in the same camp as those
blinkered and prejudiced people like David Starkey who mistakenly
believe Shakespeare was writing history instead of drama.
Richard was NOT hunchbacked but had scoliosis, the same as such
"deformed" people as Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, and Elizabeth Taylor.
Nobody knows what happened to the children of Edward IV, so nobody can
say even if there was a murder, let alone who is guilty, and Richard did
not steal the throne but was offered it by The Lords and Commons when
the illegitimacy of his brothers children was discovered.
All that apart, your comments were very accurate! NOT. Pity one is able
to slander the dead.
And the thousands of people crowding to the battle field along the route
into Leicester, the streets of the town, and queuing for hours to pass
by his coffin showed how much interest there was out there. Plus the
vastly over subscribed ballots for places at the various services.
Bet viewing figures are high too.
Paul Trevor Bale

ÿ Excellent, Paul. Thank you. Nance Crawford
www.NanceCrawford.com
----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] To: Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 1:07 PM Subject: Sunday Mirror

Just sent this to TV Critic Kevin Osullivan, so up himself, who made
ridiculous comments about the Channel 4 coverage in today's Sunday
Mirror newspaper

Calling Richard III "the hunch-backed monarch who murdered two children
to steal the top job" places you firmly in the same camp as those
blinkered and prejudiced people like David Starkey who mistakenly
believe Shakespeare was writing history instead of drama.
Richard was NOT hunchbacked but had scoliosis, the same as such
"deformed" people as Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, and Elizabeth Taylor.
Nobody knows what happened to the children of Edward IV, so nobody can
say even if there was a murder, let alone who is guilty, and Richard did
not steal the throne but was offered it by The Lords and Commons when
the illegitimacy of his brothers children was discovered.
All that apart, your comments were very accurate! NOT. Pity one is able
to slander the dead.
And the thousands of people crowding to the battle field along the route
into Leicester, the streets of the town, and queuing for hours to pass
by his coffin showed how much interest there was out there. Plus the
vastly over subscribed ballots for places at the various services.
Bet viewing figures are high too.
Paul Trevor Bale

As much as I admire Starkey as a historian (I've enjoyed his series on 'Monarchy' ) for example, he's way off base concerning Richard. Probably something to do with his pomposity and prejudice. It's a amazing how this flows deep, and down the centuries, concerning Richard. I agree there's nothing actual about what happened to the Princes. Richard left them in the Tower, which was then, still, a palace, for their own protection. Had he won at Bosworth, he would have known what to do which would have been what was best for them in the long run.

Did anybody read what Charlie Brooker (Booker?) wrote in the Guardian last week re Richard III? I always thought that the Guardian was a reputable newspaper. Not any more. Who's Charlie Brooker anyway????Sure as hell won't be digging him up in 500 years!


-----Original Message-----
From: davetheslave44@... [] <>
To: <>
Sent: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:49
Subject: Re: Sunday Mirror

As much as I admire Starkey as a historian (I've enjoyed his series on 'Monarchy' ) for example, he's way off base concerning Richard. Probably something to do with his pomposity and prejudice. It's a amazing how this flows deep, and down the centuries, concerning Richard. I agree there's nothing actual about what happened to the Princes. Richard left them in the Tower, which was then, still, a palace, for their own protection. Had he won at Bosworth, he would have known what to do which would have been what was best for them in the long run.

No, I haven't had the chance, but if it's a load of the usual crapola (excuse my French) about the Boar, the Guardian's doing itself damage. I wouldn't be digging him up either.



On Monday, 30 March 2015, 11:48, "cccakes1@... []" <> wrote:


Did anybody read what Charlie Brooker (Booker?) wrote in the Guardian last week re Richard III? I always thought that the Guardian was a reputable newspaper. Not any more. Who's Charlie Brooker anyway????Sure as hell won't be digging him up in 500 years!


-----Original Message-----
From: davetheslave44@... [] <>
To: <>
Sent: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:49
Subject: Re: Sunday Mirror

As much as I admire Starkey as a historian (I've enjoyed his series on 'Monarchy' ) for example, he's way off base concerning Richard. Probably something to do with his pomposity and prejudice. It's a amazing how this flows deep, and down the centuries, concerning Richard. I agree there's nothing actual about what happened to the Princes. Richard left them in the Tower, which was then, still, a palace, for their own protection. Had he won at Bosworth, he would have known what to do which would have been what was best for them in the long run.

Excellent letter, Paul!


On Monday, 30 March 2015, 5:54, "David Butterworth davetheslave44@... []" <> wrote:


No, I haven't had the chance, but if it's a load of the usual crapola (excuse my French) about the Boar, the Guardian's doing itself damage. I wouldn't be digging him up either.



On Monday, 30 March 2015, 11:48, "cccakes1@... []" <> wrote:


Did anybody read what Charlie Brooker (Booker?) wrote in the Guardian last week re Richard III? I always thought that the Guardian was a reputable newspaper. Not any more. Who's Charlie Brooker anyway????Sure as hell won't be digging him up in 500 years!


-----Original Message-----
From: davetheslave44@... [] <>
To: <>
Sent: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:49
Subject: Re: Sunday Mirror

As much as I admire Starkey as a historian (I've enjoyed his series on 'Monarchy' ) for example, he's way off base concerning Richard. Probably something to do with his pomposity and prejudice. It's a amazing how this flows deep, and down the centuries, concerning Richard. I agree there's nothing actual about what happened to the Princes. Richard left them in the Tower, which was then, still, a palace, for their own protection. Had he won at Bosworth, he would have known what to do which would have been what was best for them in the long run.