Five Minutes on Thomas More and King Richard III

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ต.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 6

  • @UnderTheKnifeShow
    @UnderTheKnifeShow 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Well done, Joanne! Really fascinating.

  • @NortheasternLDN
    @NortheasternLDN  9 ปีที่แล้ว

    Lecturer in the History of Ideas at New College of the Humanities Dr Joanne Paul takes us through this history of Sir Thomas More and his depiction of King Richard III.
    The History BA at New College of the Humanities in London offers the opportunity to study the history of western civilization - Britain, Europe and America - from AD 300 to 1997, with two modules providing you the opportunity to explore non-western history. To learn more about studying at NCH, visit us here: www.nchum.org/courses/history-ba

  • @chrisw6704
    @chrisw6704 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    It seems to me that there was insufficient consideration given to whom Thomas Moore was writing and when it was written. It is hardly likely that Moore would have written a history exonerating Richard lll in the reign of Henry Vll who had defeated him in battle and also knowing that there were those who had a far better claim to the throne of England than the first Tudor King.

  • @kareno7848
    @kareno7848 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    More was really writing about Henry vii. It's mostly a farce.

  • @Madison-iw8ix
    @Madison-iw8ix 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    More was a good man in his own right, but I don't think he was right to tarnish Richard's name. Ironically, he did that for the same man who would kill him for treason.

  • @Moose.-vy5ye
    @Moose.-vy5ye 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This is a professor?! What kind of an institution hires such amatures?
    Some points are correct. More was a very young child when Richard III reigned. It's highly unlikely he ever witnessed anything related to that reign. It is true that More was a part of that slimy putz's, Bishop John Morton, household when young. Morton's influence on More's description of Richard are obvious. All serious historians of this Era in English history dismiss More, Shakespeare, Polydore Virgil, and Mancini as valid sources when researching Richard III.