Richard III discussion

On Amazon the other day I came across a book that was billed as a more realistic picture of Richard, showing him as neither a total villain nor a sappy hero. Today I went back to consider buying it and--could not find it! Sad to say, I can't even remember if it was a biography or a novel. Can anyone give me a clue as to what the title might be?

I was going to suggest The Seventh Son, but I see you already have that on your TBR list.

No clue as to the book your looking for, sorry. What I do want to say is that the World swallowed Tudor propaganda hook line and sinker.
Even today, professors of History (who should know better) carry on peddling the old lies - this was proved to me by academics turning their backs on a BBC documentary in 2004, which showed that Edward IV was not the son of Duke Richard, and therefore had no claim in Law to the throne. It follows from this that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had no choice but to refuse to crown Edward V (elder of the princes) - it had nothing to do with Richard.
Similarly, Crowland abbey was so shot through with Tudor patronage that the Croyland Chronicle cannot be treated as an independant source, it still is.
I could go on.
Acceptance that portraits of Richard were over-painted does not mean historians have cleaned up their act. I'm afraid we all learned our Shakespeare too well in school, and it is emotionally still with us.
When I came to write my book I was frankly shocked at the wrongness of conventional history. I've talked to Richard Van Allen at the R3 Society, but as the Ricardian is now only published once a year I thought no help there and concentrated on the Reincarnation aspects of my book. Perhaps I should try again.

Please do try again. Oh! I love my Shakespeare as Shakespeare the playwright of human folly, love, comedy, literature etc. Not Shakespeare the historian. He never claimed to be; to be fair and needed his head on his shoulders to write.
'Popular' history is NOT proper academic history, even 20th century history as AJP Taylor has demonstrated in his tomes on the origins of both world wars.
Methodology in historical studies of real evidence has been sloppy to say the least. Admittedly, more difficult the further back we go and Henry VII was not slow in erasing evidence.
It is a long wait for the best truth to emerge... but worth the wait.

Harvey, thanks for that post (more than I can say). AJP was the greatest, wasn't he? I tried to teach like him.
Richard V.A. has been away, I'll phone him again today.
I am involved in the reincarnation aspects of my book, today I have to do something as to BlogTalkRadio, and there is a discussion board in Goodreads on Brian Weiss that I have to get off the ground.
Despite that, I'll contact the other R3 organs and see who we can interest.
Should you be interested, my book is written as a novel, but demonstrates the points of history, you can get it as an ebook from the Smashwords premium catalogue (paperback at Amazon) and I've put a product link.
Edward

Mike wrote: "Harvey, thanks for that post (more than I can say). AJP was the greatest, wasn't he? I tried to teach like him.
Richard V.A. has been away, I'll phone him again today.
I am involved in the reincarn..."

Thanks from the technologically challenged! Of course none of us are fans of AL Rowse (the poisoned dwarf). Just could not resist!

There is 'cargo-cult' science as explained by Prof. Feynman. Well... history is no exception. There is the same 'cargo-cult' history that is content with received, rather than researched opinion. I have no problem with WS. He was writing drama, and expounded universal truths about human nature in that medium. Drama, truth about ourselves, but NOT history. Poetry? Yes, of course. History? No.
Historians have to be detectives. Historians have to be forensic. Warts and all. But honest!

Harvey you are right. If someone has learned a body of knowledge, passed exams in it and taught it over decades, it becomes a bit difficult to admit that a lot of that knowledge was false.
Even if I did not have sympathy with academics, I would have to admit the fact that minds are closed and there is too much investment in the status quo. This is why I put it in a novel, to reach the public, which has not made that investment.
What I didn't realise is that readers are attached to the known and familiar, it makes them feel safe.
Edward is not a safe book.
But for all the 'new' ideas, it can still be read as a love story, even an adventure story - I hope that is enough for those who don't want to be too challenged.
In the end the truth has a habit of coming out, even after more than 500 years.

Mike wrote: "Harvey you are right. If someone has learned a body of knowledge, passed exams in it and taught it over decades, it becomes a bit difficult to admit that a lot of that knowledge was false.
Even if ..."

To put my colours to the mast, I am not a great fan of fiction, though there is a great body of thought that much truth is spoken in fiction and vica versa!
There is tragedy in humour and so on...
Far be for me to attack your approach.
But the bottom line is that we must (not just for Richard) we must get kids to THINK!

Absolutely!!!
All I would add, and I have given 'A' level classes on "the Real Richard III", is that the adults, including me, have a lot to learn. When you no longer think you die.

True... not JUST kids, but at 55 I am thinking about next generations, though I will NEVER give up the quest for knowledge!

I've often thought that we Ricardians should THANK Shakespeare. Since r3 only reigned a little over two years, I think he would have been an obscure historical footnote but for Shakespeare having so brilliantly made him the archetypal villain.

Being a writer of fiction, I have to defend our role in perhaps getting at larger emotional truths. The key is for writers to respect the history and especially the real people that we are writing about.

I do have a big problem with "historians" who don't properly source and continue pushing their agendas without even acknowledging alternative views. That's one reason why I so much love Richard III: The Maligned King by Annette Carson, where even patently fictional works that are accepted as gospel (More in particular) were examined and shown to be in error based on extant documents and archeological evidence.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. --Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Your thoughts are always valuable, I'm not sure the English should thank Shakespeare for R3, any more than the Scotts should thank him for the 'Scottish Play'.

It is worth noting that R3 was the last legitimate king, at least till James I.

May I agree with you on 'The Maligned King' (wonder how many people realise that More played tricks, you can work out some of the truth from what he says if you have the information - e.g. the bodies under the stairs were never the princes, they were doubles used in the abduction - and, by the way, I'd need more evidence before I put that forward of a certainty).

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. --Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Thank you for that.

Just another thought for Harvey, in Edward I am careful to distinguish between what is evidenced and that which I can't prove - it is important.

Darkpool wrote: "I was going to suggest The Seventh Son, but I see you already have that on your TBR list."

Thank you, Darkpool! I believe this is the one. Duh! I didn't even think to look on my TBR list! I've ordered a copy and will proceed to read. Yum.

Thank you Mike. I was just musing about Shakespeare... Titus Andronicus was fictional but a great play. Would Richard have been marginalized if not for WS? Moot point. Henry V did not have a long reign, Many Scottish kings reigned for a tragically short time (nothing to do with Shakespeare).
King Edward VIII reigned for 326 days only, though no suggestion of princes in the tower or a surfeit of Malmsey wine or lampreys, just of ANOTHER woman. A divorced American one at that! The heavens are about to fall at any moment!
Anyway, Bosworth has clouded whatever Richard actually did as King, as what Edward VIII did for the miners of South Wales is forgotten because of the woman he loved. Not totally. I'd challenge most folks in the world and mention Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson will spring to people's lips before social responsibility. No puns intended!

Harvey, once again agreed. Shakespeare created monsters and fiction loves monsters, I don't mind that as long as it is clearly labelled 'fantasy'.
Agreed about R3 and Edward VIII, correct understanding depends on balance as well as truth.
I think there is something nebulous and subconscious about R3, the public knows it has been lied to but it doesn't quite know what truth has been taken away - only that it's important.

Excellent point! Wow! This discussion is getting lively!
Funnily enough, though subconscious at the time, maybe there are distinct analogies in the public perception of Richard and Edward, though for distinctly different reasons.
Nice point Mike!

Eileen wrote: "Darkpool wrote: "I was going to suggest The Seventh Son, but I see you already have that on your TBR list."

Thank you, Darkpool! I believe this is the one. Duh! I didn't even thin..."

I liked Seventh Son a lot. Granted it isn't as thorough as say Penman is, but if you're already grounded on the period it's a good choice - especially as you do get a more rounded look. I hate the black and white portrayals we see so often, especially the newest crop of Richard-Sues.

Misfit wrote: "Eileen wrote: "Darkpool wrote: "I was going to suggest The Seventh Son, but I see you already have that on your TBR list."

Thank you, Darkpool! I believe this is the one. Duh! I d..."

Richard Sues???

Heh, I didn't coin that one, but I'm happy to *borrow* it. There's been a real proliferation lately of novels on R3 lately that paint him as the absolute perfection of goodness and light and sprinkled with serious dose of sugar on top of that.

A phrase heard often in the romance genre is Mary-Sue, which would be the female version of what I've just described. One of the reviewers at Amazon used the term Richard Sue and it was just too good not to use. If you've read Sandra Worth's books you'd know what I'm talking about.

Richard Sue! BWAHAHAHAAHA!

Misfit, there is no doubting the wrongfulness of the Tudor campaign. While Richard was painfully conscientious and caring he was also ruthless and blinkered and had the Plantagenet temper, which the Tudors used so effectively against him.
I cannot think Edward IV would have killed either Hastings or Buckingham out of hand, and if Richard had taken thought, as his brother would have done, history would have taken a different turn.

There sure are a lot of could have should have's in that story, aren't there? I like seeing R3 in a more balanced portrayal. He certainly wasn't a Richard-Sue, but I doubt he was black and evil as he's come to be known either. Most men of that period in power would have to have a fair shake of ruthlesness in them.

It's been my experience that most professors who teach Shakespeare discourage the quest for history knowledge when it comes to reading Richard III. And that baffles me. It's as if they think that students won't enjoy the play as much if they knew how inaccurate it is. For me, it was the exact opposite....I found that having a good working knowledge of the history made the play that much more enjoyable. I loved Shakespeare's delicious evil Richard and knowing the character isn't based in reality didn't change that. (His verbal sparring with Margaret of Anjou is incredibly funny!)

Sadly, I suspect many professors of English do not know much of the historical background of the Wars of the Roses. They'll know Shakespeare's plays, and they know of the political climate in Tudor England where Shakespeare was able to keep his theater open by plugging into the Tudor worldview in an age before what we take so for granted--freedom of speech. Still, I'm guessing most (many?) folks in English departments prefer the luscious characterization in *R3* and, if anything, just treat the debate over the "real Richard" as a footnote.

Eileen wrote: "Sadly, I suspect many professors of English do not know much of the historical background of the Wars of the Roses. They'll know Shakespeare's plays, and they know of the political climate in Tudor..."

The problem lies in the way history is taught at schools. I am talking as a product of England 1955 vintage. Up to 'O' level, the 3rd year of Senior School, roughly age 14. One is taken (or was) from the ancient civilizations, Rome, Roman Britain and up to the end of Queen Anne. Very little mention of Scottish history or World history excepting those occasions when English history interacts, e.g. in Blightey we, unlike many Americans know something about President Polk.
When things get serious at 'O' level, when higher education is decided on those results, generations of schoolchildren are/were bored to death by the Chartists and the repeal of the Corn Laws. Now, gentle readers, the events of Victorian England were of great importance but the course material was frankly duller than dishwater. I scraped through somehow on devouring JH Plumb for my own pleasure and have loved 18th century history ever since as a result. That gentleman could write!
The point of my rant is; what chance does R3 stand?!
I was lucky in that through my father (he put me off maths for years, but I cottoned on to history though his library) and joining an English Civil War battle society that had some R3 battle society members too, I found my own way and love of history.
I feel a sea change is needed in our approach to history teaching in general.

Harvey is right, at least in the U.K., all teaching now seems to be about results and league-tables, in fact, the expression 'teaching and learning' is a misnomer; it's about cramming. The result is very many students don't learn to think, they have learnt to produce answers more or less without understanding.
It is to the remarkable credit of the 6th formers with whom I have discussed the real R3 that they are interested and can understand: a simple point, that the killing of Hastings and Buckingham alienated or drove into exile so many administrators that government became difficult. Historians fail to see the full implications of this, 18 year-olds can see them very well.

Mike wrote: "...that the killing of Hastings and Buckingham alienated or drove into exile so many administrators that government became difficult...."

I only hope Assad of Syria would watch Kuwait's very own Sulayman al-Bassam's "Richard III: An Arab Tragedy"...

While it is very impractical for all teaching to be done in a pub, I must confess to have gained more insights about 17th Century British and French history over some pints of real ale with a quite remarkable tutor than in class.

A former American Ambassador to Kuwait who teaches at the University tells me the situation of history learning in the US is a sorry one too.

Europeans seem to have a broader view of history and apart from wishing that someone could do for R3 precisely what Starkey has done for the Tudors we should be concerned about what is in the syllabus and how history is being taught.

High time a good film script was written about the Wars of the Roses. Nobody can claim a lack of dramatic material!

I'm a product of the US public school system (graduated HS in 1961, so I guess I qualify as a geezer--almost) and I hated history, and couldn't spell words well enough to look them up in the dictionary without a hint as to what the first three letters were--so I went into engineering (I was good in math and science too). It wasn't until 2004 that I discovered the real Richard III through reading Sharon Kay Penman's Sunne in Splendour, that I got interested in this man's history. And even though I got good grades in history, I found it completely irrelevant then.

I don't know for a fact, but it does seem as though the way history is taught now is orders of magnitude better than when I was in school.

Joan wrote: "I'm a product of the US public school system (graduated HS in 1961, so I guess I qualify as a geezer--almost) and I hated history, and couldn't spell words well enough to look them up in the dictio..."

I hope things are better; I am merely quoting Prof. W. Nathaniel Howell who appeared to think there was quite a way to go. Other than received opinion, not having studied in the USA, I can't really comment on the US history syllabus.

Closer to home plus the countries I have worked/resided in I am constantly amazed at the almost 'isolationist' way history is taught at up to, (I imagine, the Brits have a different system) High School level. I am not overly impressed with the history teaching materials I have seen in the Arab World either. Many atlases and historical atlases are just plain wrong. We all abhor burning books but some of the materials I have seen tempt one to think otherwise, not least adding the authors and the authorities who have OK'd such trash.

Having got that of my chest I will cool down with a sundowner... :)

I'm a more recent graduate (1984 vintage), but history tends to be miserably taught in high schools in America; I got lucky and had a teacher who loved her subject and did her best to make it interesting for her students.

I got doubly lucky in that I had her for three years.

Well... in any system, those gems who love their subject and die to communicate their subject with passion do wonders.

Some years back I attended a lecture about Islamic Science and Mathematics (in Arabic) and I was very much in two minds to attend. Maths having been a scar on my younger life and while I'm a bit of an Arabist, the lecture clearly was on some high level.

Prof. Ahmed Jabbar was brilliant! 40 minutes sped away, though I cannot confess I became a great mathematician. I did though buy his book on Islamic science (in French) that he co-authored.

The guy had passion and enthusiasm and love for his subject and could communicate that energy.

As a footnote, he was Minister of Higher Education in Algeria and then teaching Mathematics at Lille in France. I felt his students were just so lucky.

Susanna wrote: "I'm a more recent graduate (1984 vintage), but history tends to be miserably taught in high schools in America; I got lucky and had a teacher who loved her subject and did her best to make it inter..."

I was fortunate, as well, Susanna. I had a brilliant introduction to history that led to my continuing study throughout my higher education. But that was before the days where test scores reigned supreme....who cares what students retain or actually understand. We are a system that has brought it down to the lowest level of learning: rote memorization. Just get the test scores and that's all that matters.

In doing so, our country (the US) has lost the ability to teach critical thinking skills. Random dates mean nothing if a student cannot - on their own, without hand-holding - critically analyze sources.

As a result (oops, here I go up on my bad-bad-bad soapbox), we've got all these readers who will pick up any fluff historical fiction and BELIEVE what they are reading to be fact. After all, the author's note says that they researched this novel, right? It must be true.

Okay, off my soapbox. I think we have a lot of talented educators out there, but their hands are tied by the system. While I'm not a huge fan of homeschooling (my kids drive me nuts as it is), I can understand why some parents have elected to go that route.

Susanna wrote: "I'm a more recent graduate (1984 vintage), but history tends to be miserably taught in high schools in America; I got lucky and had a teacher who loved her subject and did her best to make it inter..."

My school days were a long time ago as well, but I recall history being pretty spotty as well, and they could barely cover US history let alone England's.


Michele, I'm right there behind you on the soap box. Besides, accurate historical novels are only important when *they* want the accuracy to be important. Otherwise you will be slapped with the old mantra of "it's fiction, if you want factual history read non-fiction".

Although I've heard tell of some pretty damned in accurate non-fiction books.

I think one of the better things about that high school teacher's rules was that she had us memorize very few dates. We had to know in what order things happened, but why they happened she considered more important.

Talking of historical novels. The Three Musketeers is an interesting case. In the novel, Cardinal Richelieu is portrayed as an 'enemy' of the King. In actual fact the opposite was true and he laid the foundations of what became the Absolute Monarchy of the next king, Louis XIV, Le Roi Soleil.
The interesting point is that Richelieu's 'treason' in the story is accurate in that the noble idiots saw things that way. He was though one of the most loyal ministers France ever had, certainly at that time.
The book is a great romp though!

Now Dumas is one author that I don't mind when he diddles with history. I suppose since it was so long ago...

Or could he be that his books are damned well written and entertaining that I don't care if he diddles?

Well they are fun! The funny thing is that he was wrong for the right reasons... or is the other way about?

Harvey wrote: "Well they are fun! The funny thing is that he was wrong for the right reasons... or is the other way about?"

Did you read the entire series? Twenty years after, the Vicomte de Bragelonne, Louise de la Valliere and The Man in the Iron Mask?

On the rarer side is his The Two Dianas. Jolly good fun and he defininitely diddles with history in this one.

No I have not read all the series, but did the Age of Louis XIV at 'A' level, and was interested in the 17th cent. anyway so hence my love and critique of the Musketeers.

Misfit wrote: "Susanna wrote: "I'm a more recent graduate (1984 vintage), but history tends to be miserably taught in high schools in America; I got lucky and had a teacher who loved her subject and did her best ..."

I agree with your comments about American education. A teacher myself, I am fortunate here near the end of my career to have discovered the movement to restore classical education in the United States--education based on the Greco-Roman model, including (at our school) Socratic dialogue and four years of Aristotelian logic. The three stages of classical education (grammar, logic, rhetoric) go along with the development of the human brain as a child grows and develops. Facts are considered foundational(grammar stage) but their manipulation in terms of making connections, drawing comparisons, and looking for logical fallacies (logic phase) is finally capped with weighing, evaluating, and writing and defending one's own thesis (rhetoric stage). From my perspective, the problem with today's schools is not so much that they stop with the gramamr stage (in history that would include dates at least of major watersheds in history) but that they skip it altogether to get to the "creative" side, which really has turned out to mean making an emotional response to history. Knowing the sequence (facts, manipulation of facts, evaluation of facts), one can see the problems that would arise if one "evaluated" before really knowing what happened. One last thought before I close: proponents of classical education do not state that a child cannot do all of these phases until they reach a certain age, but that children can do all stages from the get-go but obviously the proportion would vary according to brain development. If you'd like to learn more, google "classical education" and take a gander. Really fun stuff!

Eileen wrote: "Misfit wrote: "Susanna wrote: "I'm a more recent graduate (1984 vintage), but history tends to be miserably taught in high schools in America; I got lucky and had a teacher who loved her subject an..."

Hear hear! It is too simplistic to say that ALL history teaching is direct out of 1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine Dates.

One other point I'd like Eileen's point of view on, being a teacher is the "emotional response to history". This is a real minefield, especially when dealing with Europe (including Russia and the Soviet Union) during the last century. Of course subsequent to Stalin's demise other forces have almost competed with each other in the mass extermination business. Something impossible NOT to have an emotional response to, but more complicated to examine forensically and detached as a discipline.

Obviously all human beings are going to have emotional responses to things that have happened in history! That, in fact, is perhaps part of the joy of teaching history--getting swept up in events and feeling oneself a part of the good, the bad, and the ugly. But let's take the example of the way Puritans are treated in most history classes today. Most students don't even know that the term "Puritan" refers to a person who desired to continue "purifying" the Church of England from unbiblical practices that emerged in the Middle Ages. By the time they piled onto the Mayflower and departed for the New World, they were no longer Puritans. They had become Separatists. They'd given up on purifying the Anglican Church due to King James's ultimatum: "They will conform or I will harry them out of the land." Instead, most graduates of American high schools think that the term "Puritan" refers to someone who advocated sexual purity and, in doing so, had all kinds of sexual hang-ups, which is not supported by fact. Of course, they viewed sex as God's gift within the bonds of marriage, but that's the point: it was a beautiful gift, and Puritans did not shy away from this topic in their writings. Many teachers like to focus on the witchcraft trials but do nothing to put them into their wider context: the farther west one went, the fewer executions for witchcraft--central Europe having the most, England in the middle, and America fewer than twenty. Moreover, often lost in instruction today is the fact that there were established laws against the practice (whether one agrees with the law or not) and no judgments were made without a trial conducted according to the rules of evidence. Killing the soul was, to the seventeenth century, just as bad as (if not worse than) killing the body, and punishment was to reflect that belief. That we still have the death penalty for killing the body shows that the principle, at least, is still recognized. So, by teaching some of these facts, which of course would need to be supported with relevant quotations from the writings of the Puritans, teachers could actually enlighten students instead of teaching them to emote with feelings of anger and mockery whenever they see a stereotypical drawing of a Puritan. (They did wear all colors, not just black and white.) To continue with the Holocaust example, which is an excellent one, some children are being taught that the holocaust never happened and that one should squelch statements to the contrary. Shockingly, some texts in both England and the United States are starting to minimize the events of twentieth-century Europe in order not to offend those who deny the Holocaust. In order to do such a thing, one must stop teaching the facts, so once again, what we "feel" about a topic is one thing; whether those feelings have any foundation in reality is another thing altogether and should not be given short shrift.

Eileen wrote: "Obviously all human beings are going to have emotional responses to things that have happened in history! That, in fact, is perhaps part of the joy of teaching history--getting swept up in events ..."

Very interesting comments. Just to add to what you were saying about the Puritans, 'popular' history is inclined to paint a picture of ALL the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War as being of one dull, black and white stamp. That is not true of course; the truth was more complex, though there was a body of extremists, shall we say who caused theatres to be closed and smashed stained-glass windows in Anglican churches. Sir Bevil Grenville on the other hand who raised a standard for Cromwell was a regular guy who simply fought for the existence of Parliament against the, as he saw it, autocratic and inept rule of Charles I. Praise God Barebones, a real name, tends to grab more headlines and tars everyone with the same brush.
As to Holocaust denial, I would say it is a minority pastime in UK. David Irving was the subject of a civil suit due to his beliefs and was vilified for them. UK, unlike Austria where he was convicted of Holocaust denial has no similar law. I say Thank God for that, not out of sympathy for Irving but in my view making wrong beliefs criminal are the thin end of the wedge. There is I believe a Flat-Earth Society still in existence, come to that there are possibly a few who admire Stalin and Pol Pot. My view is that they should be left to rot in hell.
One dangerous area is in dealing with our immediate past; there are still a few Holocaust victims and perpetrators still alive on the one hand, we have the State of Israel and the very interesting dynamics that has made and is continuing to make in the Middle-East and Gulf States. This adds up to a very potent and explosive mixture!
I am not suggesting the subjects contained should not be studied and discussed, on the contrary they should. The question is how objectively can they be discussed and studied?

I'm only 25 and I graduated HS in 2003, but I have to say that my education through the public school system changed dramatically through the years. Up until probably my Freshman year of HS I think the teachers were really interested in teaching things they found important and tried to teach them in interesting ways.
Once my Sophomore year hit the school system began the different type of standardized testing. The tests were nothing new, but that year they were a requirement for not only passing the grade, but also for graduating. I think that was the point when I began to feel like the whole school year revolved around just being taught what was on the test and only what was on the test. I had my suspicions confirmed by one teacher who complained about being restricted by the new curriculum.
The saddest part about all of it is that not only do the students only learn what the government decided was important, but also their pay and jobs were based on how their students did on those tests.
I think there is much more to education than tests, but unfortunately the US government feels that the only way to truly see what you've learned is by a multiple choice test. The thing I never understood about using the tests is that once you figure out what they are asking, you are really being asked the exact same question over and over again, so there is really not much knowledge being tested, just your memorization skills.

With the state of the school systems I went through in HS and college I'm glad I was never taught Richard III in school. I probably would have either found the character to be dull and boring or as just a bad guy, and would have never picked up a book with him as the main character. I was taught to take Shakespeare's work at face value as far as history was concerned and never looked any farther into it than the linguistic style.

While I find this discussion absolutely fascinating, I want to get back to the original question Eileen asked:

On Amazon the other day I came across a book that was billed as a more realistic picture of Richard, showing him as neither a total villain nor a sappy hero. Today I went back to consider buying it and--could not find it! Sad to say, I can't even remember if it was a biography or a novel. Can anyone give me a clue as to what the title might be?

It occurred to me that two books by Rhoda Edwards that we've discussed to a greater or lesser extent would fit that category. I've read and absolutely loved the first book she wrote that covered the time from slightly before he became protecto to slightly after his defeat at Redemore: The Broken Sword (US title) or Some Touch of Pity (UK title); and the second book that covers his early life up to his becoming Protector: Fortune's Wheel (I haven't read but from all I've heard it's quite good).

Thanks, Joan! I've decided to make a reading list for my students, so this is a great tip!

Joan wrote: "While I find this discussion absolutely fascinating, I want to get back to the original question Eileen asked: On Amazon the other day I came across a book that was billed as a more realistic pictu..."

May I humbly recommend to the moderator we may have an 'off topic' venue? I agree with Joan the subject has drifted and I am guilty as charged. I am enjoying the discussion and learning more about experiences and how history is taught outside UK plus covering many other issues that impinge on history teaching, today and maybe tomorrow.

Most of my US contacts teach Islamic art and culture, former US Ambassadors to the Middle-East or are curators in some of the US's greatest institutions and by that nature are outside the mainstream of schoolwork.

I ask that we may continue the above in a new chatroom and conclude with one R3 point. Having done some battle practice as a teenager with Richardian friends, being hit by an arrow, be it rubber tipped, be it at long range and even not from a real longbow... it HURTS!

Hi, I've been at work all day and not reading all the posts. I'll start an off topic thread unless you'd like to call it something else. If I can figure out how to move the threads I'll do so, but GR has just gone very wonky on my browser.