History of England Charity

Become a Fan

« 187a Jane Shore by James Boulton | Main | 189 The Most Untrue Creature »

Sunday, July 24, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Penny fisher

I think saviour, he did what he had to do.

Amanda Jenkins

Saviour - definitely šŸ˜Š


I'd love to say saviour, but I think knave is far more likely

Jim Davis - Atlanta

Dear David (may I call you David?),

I begin by stating my undying admiration for your podcast and your skills. You, Mike Duncan and Dan Carlin are the essence of what history podcasters should be, and as a U.S. Anglophile, I have to put you at the pinnacle. In the interest of linguistic purity, however, I must point out that your use of "begs the question" in the Fool part of #188 was probably meant to be "raises the question." I would have communicated privately, but didn't see an eaddress.

As I would rather chew ground glass than venture onto FB, I shan't be in your totals, but my 50+ year exposure to Winnie makes me favor knave.

Yours for a better and more grammatical world.

The History of England

Thank you for your vote folks...Andrea, is Saviour a decision?
Jim, you may indeed call me David, or indeed anything reasonably polite.

I think the issue we have her Jim; is that I don't actually know what 'begs the question' means. A dreadful confessions. But I'll work on it!

Come over to Facebook Jim. Many, indeed most, of my friends see it as a dark place, full of terrors and goblins, bit it's really not. And it is better than chewing glass, that I promise you.

Thanks for voting!

Doug Watson

I say a fool. Based on two key principles the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid) and the principle that people are always dumber than we think, So he could not have been that smart or planned any thing that well and he showed himself not to have been a evil genius.

Hard Core Troubador

For me it can only be a fool. Not the master plotter, or white knight, but propelled along by events with the skills and determination to see them through.


This is my favorite of yours to date. Of course, my vote is knave, with some fool in there for good measure. I love, love, LOVE your podcast! But seriously, David, SERIOUSLY--The Princes in the Tower!! When? Oh When?! I am waiting not-so-patiently, with breath totally un-bated to hear your take on the matter. Will it be another debate, with various perspectives presented and argued about? Oh, I hope so. Whatever form it takes, I will await it's arrival with great anticipation.

In a complete diversion, I have read _The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England_ and it is fantastic. For those who have not read it, I highly recommend it.

The History of England

Hi Allegra...thank you so much, you are very kind ! Really glad you are liking it. And agree - Time Travellirs guide is great; and generally Ian Mortimer is a good read.

4th September for the Princes! I'll not make quite such a fuss, but we'll have a vote again. Not sure I can quite do the debating style thing again for this though; the amount of evidence for each is quite unbalanced, but there'll be a vote for sure.


Huzzah!!! Though, I can understand why you haven't done the Princes yet. There's so much we don't know, and will never know. But still, looking very much forward to the vote and seeing what others think about it all. Thank you so much!!

Dev Parker

Listening to episode 188; how the character of Gloucester influenced his decision to usurp the throne put me in mind to yell abuse at an innocent podcast player just doing its job. Gentle readers, I put this to you:

"History of england podcast" reminds us often that the concept of successful medieval kingship is to balance interests and portion rewards judiciously. As you describe the court riddled with rivals and (expected for the time) corruption, Gloucester had few options. And, he neither lacked for his own values, nor ambition, nor an ambitious affinity.

His patrimony, service & factions marked Gloucester always as a prince without the crown.

This is option 4: a "hate the game, not the player" argument.

"History of england podcast": may I ask you to repeat the nature & expectations of kingship and convention in our segment in history. Reason being, it seems to be an accurate prediction of individual actions (though not contingencies & outcomes). Also, when & how does kingship change?

In that light, Gloucester's decision was categorically opportunistic, partial & callous. On the other hand, expected & par for the course in power politics.

Love the show. Please continue the great effort!

The History of England

Hi Dev, and yes I very much take your point. And yes, delighted to do a piece on kingship; as we go through the Tudor age, it will begin to change a little - but not much, but the government around the monarch does change.

I still think there's something a bit exceptional about Richard III. I do agree there are powerful forces driving him to what he did - that's what I meant by the rather poorly named 'fool' category. But the age of the Princes is the thing that makes it a bit exceptional i think, and why there was such a horrified reaction even at the time. because they were young, blameless. In all the other minorities (Henry III, Richard II, Henry VI) actually the political classes had behaved rather well.


great information.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)