Thanks, Ann L. ........

........ for the letter in today's Mail. Misuse of the
word "descendant" when "collateral descendant" (Richard is not
Raedwald's descendant nor are the House of Windsor his descendants) is
meant makes me cringe - it is sloppy, as is "Lady June Hillary"
for "June, Lady Hillary" (a knight's wife not an Earl's daughter).

Does anything have a similar effect on other posters?

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ........ for the letter in today's Mail. Misuse of the
> word "descendant" when "collateral descendant" (Richard is not
> Raedwald's descendant nor are the House of Windsor his descendants)
is
> meant makes me cringe - it is sloppy, as is "Lady June Hillary"
> for "June, Lady Hillary" (a knight's wife not an Earl's daughter).
>
> Does anything have a similar effect on other posters?

I am afraid it is all part and parcel of very sloppy use of English,
grammar and punctuation which is found at all levels today. The BBC
used to be regarded as a "keeper of excellence" with regard to
language, as did many of our newspapers. Today, there are countless
mistakes everywhere. Even broadcast journalists today seem to have
lost the distinction between amount and number.


>

Calling the late Lady Diana, Princess of Wales "Princess Diana" had a
similar effect on me. If she had to be referred to as 'Princess' it
should have been as 'Princess Charles' in the same way as Princess
Michael of Kent.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ........ for the letter in today's Mail. Misuse of the
> word "descendant" when "collateral descendant" (Richard is not
> Raedwald's descendant nor are the House of Windsor his descendants)
is
> meant makes me cringe - it is sloppy, as is "Lady June Hillary"
> for "June, Lady Hillary" (a knight's wife not an Earl's daughter).
>
> Does anything have a similar effect on other posters?
>

I wasn't expecting the Mail to print it.

Regards

Ann




________________________________
From: bty443080 <pamela.furmidge@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 28 November, 2008 7:10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks, Ann L. ........


--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@ ...> wrote:
>
> ........ for the letter in today's Mail. Misuse of the
> word "descendant" when "collateral descendant" (Richard is not
> Raedwald's descendant nor are the House of Windsor his descendants)
is
> meant makes me cringe - it is sloppy, as is "Lady June Hillary"
> for "June, Lady Hillary" (a knight's wife not an Earl's daughter).
>
> Does anything have a similar effect on other posters?

I am afraid it is all part and parcel of very sloppy use of English,
grammar and punctuation which is found at all levels today. The BBC
used to be regarded as a "keeper of excellence" with regard to
language, as did many of our newspapers. Today, there are countless
mistakes everywhere. Even broadcast journalists today seem to have
lost the distinction between amount and number.

>

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> I wasn't expecting the Mail to print it.
>
> Regards
>
> Ann
>
Well, they did. Could you try correcting them about Richard's
character and "crimes" as my letters don't get in?!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: bty443080 <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 28 November, 2008 7:10:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Thanks, Ann L. ........
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > ........ for the letter in today's Mail. Misuse of the
> > word "descendant" when "collateral descendant" (Richard is not
> > Raedwald's descendant nor are the House of Windsor his
descendants)
> is
> > meant makes me cringe - it is sloppy, as is "Lady June Hillary"
> > for "June, Lady Hillary" (a knight's wife not an Earl's daughter).
> >
> > Does anything have a similar effect on other posters?
>
> I am afraid it is all part and parcel of very sloppy use of
English,
> grammar and punctuation which is found at all levels today. The BBC
> used to be regarded as a "keeper of excellence" with regard to
> language, as did many of our newspapers. Today, there are countless
> mistakes everywhere. Even broadcast journalists today seem to have
> lost the distinction between amount and number.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Stephen or Anne
I haven't a clue what this is all about as I never read the Mail and
missed the post with the letter in. Could you post it again?
Thanks
Paul


On 28 Nov 2008, at 18:06, Stephen Lark wrote:

> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't expecting the Mail to print it.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Ann
>>
> Well, they did. Could you try correcting them about Richard's
> character and "crimes" as my letters don't get in?!
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: bty443080 <pamela.furmidge@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 28 November, 2008 7:10:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: Thanks, Ann L. ........
>>
>>
>> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Stephen Lark"
>> <stephenmlark@ ...> wrote:
>>>
>>> ........ for the letter in today's Mail. Misuse of the
>>> word "descendant" when "collateral descendant" (Richard is not
>>> Raedwald's descendant nor are the House of Windsor his
> descendants)
>> is
>>> meant makes me cringe - it is sloppy, as is "Lady June Hillary"
>>> for "June, Lady Hillary" (a knight's wife not an Earl's daughter).
>>>
>>> Does anything have a similar effect on other posters?
>>
>> I am afraid it is all part and parcel of very sloppy use of
> English,
>> grammar and punctuation which is found at all levels today. The BBC
>> used to be regarded as a "keeper of excellence" with regard to
>> language, as did many of our newspapers. Today, there are countless
>> mistakes everywhere. Even broadcast journalists today seem to have
>> lost the distinction between amount and number.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet