The Trial Of King Richard The Third - Prosecution 11

[pmgrantz]

Are they going by Shakespeare's version of accounts? If so, I hope it's taken into account that he was a Tudor sycophant for his means. I don't have the time to read the rest of the posts, but it seems Dickie is getting a bad rap again in the 20th century

[valentinejay]

@pmgrantz Yes, I think that some historians feel quite threatened by any changes to what they consider to be 'fact'. And as far as the play Richard III is concerned, not long after its first performance William Shakespeare's father, a former glover of Stratford Upon Avon, was awarded the title John Shakespeare, Gentleman and provided with a nice coat of arms with an accompanying motto - 'Non sanz droict' (not without right) to go with it.

[BegoneJonah]

Watch the whole thing and you'll see the defence counsel's game. He needn't banter words with Starkey and he knows it. He trashes Thomas More (with the first defense witness, and More's hilarious physical description of Richard III) and the rest of his testimony later on, when Starkey cannot reply, and makes a few polite but snide references to Starkey. Starkey is reduced to shaking his head "no" at one point, but that's all he can do. Very clever man, this defence QC.

[kirked007]

I thoroughly enjoyed this.  David Starkey is most entertaining as always. The Defense Counsel seems to be struggling somewhat. Lord Elwyn Jones should have reigned in the witness a touch, but he was such a genteleman.

[valentinejay]

@kirked007 If it had been a real trial Starkey would have been charged with contempt of court. I don't think that Defence Counsel is struggling at all - I think he had matters well in hand right from the word go, but it is all in the way one sees things, of course.

[blastforth]

This illustrates the need to prepare your witness and urge them to answer the questions forthrightly rather than spar with opposing counsel.

[nekovelo]

Can someone explain what this is about?

[hnoel79]

Wow....I was a fan of Starkey's but he was kind of an ass here!!

[CalliopeWilde]

these guys are GREAT! is there anywhere i can get a copy?

"dr stacy" lol

[valentinejay]

@CalliopeWilde Yes, there is, but it is on a Region 2 disc from Amazon UK, and I note that you are in the USA. If you are still interested in purchasing it, it might be better to contact me through my inbox on Youtube and I can give you a link.

Glad you are enjoying it ;)

[zahir13]

Starkey came across as arrogant, but also as knowing his subject very well. For the record, while the truth cannot be confirmed, it seems wildly unlikely that Richard did not know of and/or authorize the Princes' deaths. Not impossible, though--and frankly, as a writer, methinks that would make the better story.

[mainsqueeze1977]

@zahir13 The way Starkey behaved totally obliterated the small argument he had. His statement was totally useless for the prosecution.

[LadyPenelope8]

I love the way Defence Counsel looks straight at Dr. Starkey in his opening remarks here - about how somebody was 'not a very attractive figure, very well spoken, very plausible, with his eye on the throne for himself ' - it looks as though he is referring to Dr. Starkey himself! I am sure Defence Counsel did this on purpose - he is a very, very clever man, much more intelligent than Dr. Starkey.

[PoliticalPars]

@LadyPenelope8 I made a similar observation and I find this performance on Starkey's part deplorably rude and unconscionable. This is a mock trial, for which he is witness, not an opportunity for him to grand-stand or exhibit his own capacity for intellect. :)

[Kramiour]

Starkey is my favourite historian, his skill and knowledge is only countered by his biting wit, and he certainly brings life to this court!

[12from12]

starkey chopped him to bits lol

[valentinejay]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but personally I think it was the other way around.

[12from12]

i wasn't referring to the argument but the way they interacted. Yes starkey behaved poor

[DoctorPlausible]

Du Cann is very impressive, and I was shocked at Dr Starkey's behaviour. The prosecution could've done better than calling on such a viper. Their best witness was Dr Pollard, whose acknowledgment of the complexities of the case didn't prevent him from presenting his balanced opinion.