The Disappointed Idealist

Richard III and the Princes in the Tower by A.J. Pollard My rating: 4 of 5 stars As a person that is fascinated with history, particularly English history and very particularly the Wars of the Roses, I find this book almost perfect. The conclusion it draws is natural, logical and based on fact. But if you are one of those people (that I am meeting more and more frequently in online forums) that believe that everything bad ever written about Richard is Tudor propaganda, you will not like this book. It is not anti-Richard, but it explores the facts, and the facts are that not everything that Richard did can be seen in a positive light and if you are not willing to accept that, you should not read this. I like it when a history book shows the good and the bad, I like the logical approach and I find it well-written and easy enough to be read, even if you are not an expert in history. If that is what matters to you, you will like this book. View all my reviews

The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir My rating: 3 of 5 stars The problem with Alison Weir is that she presents "the likeliest version of the truth" as fact, when what it is is "the likeliest version". As such, I don't think she spent sufficient time debating on the other options. Personally, based on my other readings, I agree that this is indeed the likeliest version of the truth, but my conclusion is not based on this book. In one of the chapters she mentions that the Duke of Buckingham's innocence would be debated in future chapters, but I don't feel it is debated at all. After Richard, Buckingham is the likeliest suspect, and I don't see anything in this book that convinces me, as Ms Weir says that there is no way that he could have been behind the Princes' disappearance and/or eventual murder (either on his own and for his own interest, or "guided" by others). Alison Weir transitions Buckingham from a man serving his own purp

It all starts with this link: 6 Outdated Myths Everyone Still Believes About Homosexuality Far be it from me to recommend a website like Cracked to influence your system of beliefs. But out of that entire article, I will quote one sentence that truly strikes a chord with me: It's situations like these that bring credibility to the concept of "pansexuality" -- being attracted to people, not genders. So why is it that we feel the need to categorize people based on who they prefer to be sleeping with? How would you like to be categorized for preferring blondes over brunettes (or the other way around)? How is that in any way relevant to the person you are, the way you are thinking, your brain? Is that what defines you as a person? Truly? Why is it that we make such a big fuss whenever an actor comes out as gay or bisexual? Why should that actor feel the need to do so at all? I could of course start a separate debate on why on Earth we would feel to know that about hi