The Conspiracy against King Richard III - Why it still matters
An Interview with historian Michael Hoffman
Interviewer: Your newsletter in this April, 2013 issue is on the Plantagenet dynasty -- the suppressed English royal house.
Hoffman: Part of this issue is. King Richard III is our starting point.
Interviewer: Your readers are accustomed to Judaic, Zionist and occult-themed issues of your Revisionist History newsletter. What's the point of your new direction?
Hoffman: It is not a new direction. We are, as our title indicates, a newsletter of revisionist history. Hopefully people can understand that revisionist history teaches many lessons beyond subject areas such as Judaism, Zionism and the occult -- although I would not rule out a Neoplatonic factor in the events that brought down and then permanently blackened the reputation of the House of Plantagenet.
Interviewer: Why is this significant 500 years later?
Hoffman: Take a look at the recent headlines: King Richard III's remains found in Leicester, England and confirmed to be those of the deposed monarch. The finding of Richard's remains is rather miraculous in and of itself. It's as though he wanted to be rediscovered, now.
Interviewer: Why now, do you think?
Hoffman: In our time the Crown of England as well as the Anglican Church, have lost the hold they once wielded over the people of Britain; the propaganda line they maintained for centuries is held only by relatively few now, and a new retrospective is possible.
Youthful masses of avant-gardists are wearing Guy Fawkes masks and identifying with a 9/11 type of patsy who was fingered for the "Guy Fawkes conspiracy against Parliament," that was, in my opinion, a Reichstag Fire kind of set-up. Prior to our era, Guy Fawkes was universally despised in Protestant England, like Osama bin Laden is today in America because of his supposed role in 9/11. These developments --while certainly anticipated by the masonic imperium in Britain -- open a cubic centimeter of chance for those who wish to focus attention on hidden aspects of the British monarchy and its suzerainty.
Interviewer: King Richard III plays what part in this?
Hoffman: Richard was immensely attractive as a ruler of England in terms of his personal integrity and military courage. Beginning at age 17, he was in combat at the furious epicenter of horrendously bloody 15th century battles, but he was overthrown at Bosworth Field at age 32 by a wimpy intriguer, Henry Tudor (“Henry VII”), who defeated him by arranging for a betrayal of Richard by Lord Stanley's forces. King Richard's charge at the Battle of Bosworth is one of the iconic moments in English history. He led the last charge of English Knights -- against the Tudor faction and their French allies. He was the last king of England to die in battle. His final moments were spent fighting valiantly against overwhelming odds. Yet, the usurpers won the day and they've written the history books ever since, which is typical of victors in any age.
Interviewer: You call Richard the last legitimate king of England. How so?
Hoffman: The Plantagenets had the true title to the throne. They had ruled for 300 years. Meaning no disrespect to Wales, but the Tudors were Welsh upstarts. One generation later, Henry Tudor ("Henry VIII”), would dismantle the monasteries and a whole way of life. It could happen because the Plantagenets were the victims of a revolution which is not called a revolution.
Interviewer: You're saying the Plantagenets had a claim to the throne through most of the 16th century?
Hoffman: Yes, and it terrified the Tudor monarchs. Henry VIII had elderly Countess Margaret Plantagenet Pole butchered. He was also after her son Reginald, who had the strongest claim to the throne and was personally popular with the English people. Reginald was a very interesting Catholic aristocrat who, in his early career, took a dim view of Renaissance papal corruption and the theology of works-righteousness. He became a cardinal and could have been made pope if the Cryptocracy both Protestant and Catholic had not stood in his way. Throughout almost the whole time he was cardinal he never became a priest.
Interviewer: Extraordinary. Why not?
Hoffman: He had hopes of becoming the rightful King of England through marriage and when the Catholic Queen Mary Tudor succeeded to the throne, on the premature demise of the boy King Edward VI, Cardinal Pole had his chance.
Interviewer: What would the marriage of a Plantagenet and a Tudor have meant for England?
Hoffman: I would think you should ask, what would it mean for western civilization! It would have stabilized and cauterized the Anglican Catholic - Roman Catholic breach. Both religions would have had rights to worship and governance. Pole would never have instituted an inquisition against Protestants and he would have protected the Catholic majority from the inquisition that came under Elizabeth Tudor and James Stuart, which largely extirpated the Catholic religion in the sceptred isle.
Interviewer: What happened instead?
Hoffman: Instead of marrying Pole, agents of the Cryptocracy persuaded Mary to wed one of the men most despised by the English people, Phillip II of Spain. It was a disaster. Once Queen Mary took a husband, he knew his hopes were dashed and then, at long last, Cardinal Pole finally became a priest. He died of a broken heart a few hours after the death of Mary. It was the death as well of the hopes of the rightful rulers of England, the House of Plantagenet.
Interviewer: Why isn't this history better known?
Hoffman: Because of William Shakespeare, St. Thomas More and other calumniators of King Richard it is known, but it is known in the wrong way based on their false witness. More and Holinshed and Shakespeare and others set the stage for the permanent stigma on the Plantagenets that kept the Tudors on the throne for a century.
Interviewer: St. More was a Catholic, and Shakespeare is rumored to have been a crypto-Catholic.
Hoffman: Yes, and More would be executed by a Tudor. You reap what you sow. The Tudor/Plantagenet war did not start out as a Catholic-Protestant rivalry. The evil men who revolted and killed a legitimate king were Catholics. In 1485, beyond the marginal Lollard believers, there were few Protestants, as such, in England.
Interviewer: You're suggesting that More's writings and Shakespeare's play, "Richard III” were calculated to destroy the reputation of the Catholic House of Plantagenet?
Hoffman: As part of the rot that the Renaissance-Catholic degeneracy entailed, St. Thomas More, early in his career, was a committed Neoplatonist; and make no mistake, that network was synonymous with the Cryptocracy. St. Thomas woke up toward the end of his life, but it was too late for him, and too late for the reputation of King Richard and his rightful heirs.
Interviewer: More's alleged libel of Richard lived after him?
Hoffman: Treachery, revolution and usurpation when they prosper serve as a template for the future. Nothing succeeds like success. It's my hunch that Britain would have been much less likely to become the permanent masonic fiefdom which it became by 1700 and has remained ever after, had the lawful, rightful king and his line not been killed and overthrown.
Interviewer: What does this have to do with us now? As you admit, the Plantagenets are history's losers.
Hoffman: Why must history always be written by the victors? Why not write from the point of view of those with better claims to truth, whether or not they have lost in a venal material sense? These matters are surely germane at the present time. They are as relevant as the British Secret Service, which continues to be lionized in the "James Bond 007" film franchise, which is personally augmented by none other than Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, as we witnessed at the Olympics last summer. Winston Churchill recommended Thomas More's writings against King Richard as a way of maintaining the propaganda against the House of Plantagenet far into the 20th century. Why was Churchill keen to uphold what was by then what appeared to be ancient history? Why is there now a fierce struggle over where to bury Richard's skeleton — in Leicester where his enemies dumped him, or in York, his dynastic home? Some see a burial in Leicester as a sub-rosa ritual defilement, continuing the original defilement. Churchill went so far as to assert that Richard III was a prototype for Hitler; which is only one of the slightly less absurd calumnies against the Plantagenet king. St. Thomas More exceeded Churchill in the malicious nonsense he put down on paper.
The story of King Richard III is one of the terrific edifying lessons in how propaganda is manufactured and maintained, and it is for this reason that the true history of a much maligned nobleman serves as the lead essay in the latest issue of our newsletter.
Revisionist History Newsletter: Who Killed the Reputation of King Richard III? Purchase it alone, or save by subscribing and starting your subscription with this issue
Nice article raising the awareness of history in general. But two things are unclear. There is talk about a cryptocracy. Who was the cryptocracy at that time?
Then there is mention of Protestants in 1485. For those who learned that Luther's theses came in 1517 it is surprising to hear that there were already Protestants in 1485.
To James Finsterwald
Please read my statement with greater attention:
"In 1485, beyond the marginal Lollard believers, there were few Protestants, as such, in England.”
The Plantagenet Dynasty is reputed to have been hostile to Jews in England, initiating a sort of Jewish Holocaust, forcing them to wear yellow badges, and practicing general unfairness toward Jews. Do you tackle this subject in the newsletter?
The Plantagenet dynasty’s relations with so-called “Jews” is not mentioned in our study because we did not discern a connection between the downfall of the Plantagenets and how Plantagenet monarchs treated Judaic persons hundreds of years before the Battle of Bosworth.
Michael what's your view (if any) concerning the theory that Shakespeare was a pseudonym used by one or more writers of the day? Personally I believe the latter i.e. that Shakespeare was an alias used by several popular writers who collaborated together to produce the plays we know today, including Bacon, DeVere, Marlowe etc. If this is the case does this affect your research regarding Richard III in any way seeing that you mentioned you believed Shakespeare was a crypto-Catholic?
I have not studied the Shakespeare identity crisis and De Vere theories in any depth, and I cannot undertake such a study because to my mind it must be extensive in order to do justice to the subject matter, and I am deeply engaged with other research.
Therefore, I accept the standard judgment that the actor Will Shakespeare was the author of most of the plays.
As for the Bard being a “crypto-Catholic,” that is the theory of some Catholics, and others. It seems the jury is still out on that one too. I have seen strong evidence for and against, and it appears that he may have been a High Church Anglican with Roman Catholic sympathies, rather than a follower of the Church of Rome.
Not every mystery of history will be solved in our life time. Sometimes the pursuit of a mystery, without reaching a solution, is a lesson in historiographical probity -- rather than forcing a conclusion where the facts will not actually sustain it.
I have a great audio book entitled, "The Tudors" by G. J. Meyer. It was written a few years ago. Richard the 3rd was hated by his people. You say he was the rightful king. Tudor won the right to be king by conquest which was a legitimate way to come to power if you had the right blood. Did you read this book Mike? I would like to see all your material offered at say 5 dollars per month to subscribers.
If you read Revisionist History Newsletter no. 66 you will see a strong contestation of the thesis you say is put forth by G.J. Meyer.
I don't know if G J Meyer is Judaic or not, but his book may have been a way to demonize the Plantagenets. After all it was a Plantagenet king, Edward I who expelled the "Jews" from England. That could also be the reason why the Hollywood "Jews" so liked Mel Gibson's movie "Braveheart", it made Edward I the villain of the piece.
The atheist, homosexual historian, David Starkey, who takes a Whiggish view of history, also perpetuates the smears against Richard. Starkey is a big fan of the Tudors, particularly Elizabeth I and, of course, the Protestant Reformation was ushered into England under the Tudors, whereas the Plantagenets were Medieval and staunchly Catholic.
To Mary C.
You may be right about some sort of vendetta against the Plantagenets on the part of vengeful Judaics, but I have not come across such a factor in my study of their downfall; said study admittedly not being exhaustive.
What I have seen of the documentary record shows a vicious dynastic struggle on the part of power-hungry rivals — in the terminal stage of the fratricide known as the War of the Roses.
The main issue (for me anyway) has been to observe how disinformation about Richard III came to be institutionalized. This has lessons for our day.
The heretofore hidden fact that St. Thomas More was a prime mover in crafting the calumny is a cautionary tale of awe and prestige for a saint blinding us to serious transgression in his early life — the effects of which lived after him.
This is all in Revisionist History Newsletter no. 66.
Mr. Hoffman: I am rather surprised that so few know of Thomas More's propaganda efforts on behalf of his quondam friend, Henry VIII. They were first disclosed to me and my classmates by the (Catholic) teacher of my Shakespeare course, at a then Catholic college in the Northeast, some forty-five years ago. No attempt was made in those days to paper over the failings of a man not every facet of whose life presaged the eternal martyr's crown he later won for himself.
I regard the desire to perform such papering over as yet more evidence of the post-Vatican II decay within the Church and of the satanic deceitfulness of those within and without the Church who tirelessly labor to maintain and further that decay.
Something else that surprised me was the absence of any mention by commenters of the famous 1956 book on Richard III by Paul Murray Kendall. In my young maturity it was considered the last word on the slandered monarch and a must-read for anyone with a pretense to knowledge of British history. I have disabused myself, however, of the notion that these understandings are still current by a quick look at Amazon, where the largely moronic reviewers demonstrate a cavalier disregard for Kendall's scholarship as they roundly applaud the Holohoax-like accounts of Tudor apologists, which they now take as a species of holy writ.
O tempora O mores.
To Nynorsk Bokmal
How very astute of you. I too am a fan of Paul Murray Kendall and he is amply quoted in Revisionist History Newsletter no. 66.
I should add that the nobility of the Plantagenets was such that Reginald Pole forgave Thomas More his libel of Richard Plantagenet and remained More's champion to the end of his storied life and long afterward.
Post a Comment