Richard III and York
Richard III and York
2009-02-17 11:30:23
The latest edition of _The National Trust Magazine_ contains an
article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
statement:-
'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
OK, where do I start?
For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
Richard was never Duke of York.
Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
York.
His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
not York.
Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
mutter.)
article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
statement:-
'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
OK, where do I start?
For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
Richard was never Duke of York.
Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
York.
His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
not York.
Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
mutter.)
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 14:50:23
Brian
Great, accurate comments.
I hope you sent a copy to the National Trust Magazine, as you are
preaching to the converted here!
On 17 Feb 2009, at 11:30, Brian Wainwright wrote:
>
> The latest edition of _The National Trust Magazine_ contains an
> article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
> statement:-
>
> 'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
> well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
> Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
>
> OK, where do I start?
>
> For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
> you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
> Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
>
> That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
> of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
> Richard was never Duke of York.
>
> Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
> Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
> York.
>
> His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
> not York.
>
> Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
> mutter.)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Great, accurate comments.
I hope you sent a copy to the National Trust Magazine, as you are
preaching to the converted here!
On 17 Feb 2009, at 11:30, Brian Wainwright wrote:
>
> The latest edition of _The National Trust Magazine_ contains an
> article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
> statement:-
>
> 'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
> well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
> Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
>
> OK, where do I start?
>
> For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
> you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
> Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
>
> That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
> of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
> Richard was never Duke of York.
>
> Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
> Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
> York.
>
> His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
> not York.
>
> Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
> mutter.)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 14:55:53
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Brian
> Great, accurate comments.
> I hope you sent a copy to the National Trust Magazine, as you are
> preaching to the converted here!
>
Yes Paul, I have written in similar terms and copied to the R3 Society.
Who tell me that other members, including the Chairman, have already
responded.
Burnt my bloody curry in the process (the danger of neglecting pans to
go away and write) but it was worth it. Only hope Her Indoors agrees
when she comes home to an absence of meal. Hmmm...
Brian W
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Brian
> Great, accurate comments.
> I hope you sent a copy to the National Trust Magazine, as you are
> preaching to the converted here!
>
Yes Paul, I have written in similar terms and copied to the R3 Society.
Who tell me that other members, including the Chairman, have already
responded.
Burnt my bloody curry in the process (the danger of neglecting pans to
go away and write) but it was worth it. Only hope Her Indoors agrees
when she comes home to an absence of meal. Hmmm...
Brian W
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 17:03:10
--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
>
> The latest edition of _The National Trust Magazine_ contains an
> article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
> statement:-
>
> 'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
> well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
> Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust Magazine.....where do they get their
writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard could have done a bit of
googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they take the complaints
seriously. I sent off an email months ago to some tourist board (or was it a county
council?) concerning similar blatant errors they had made regarding Richard on their
website and heard nothing back from them.
Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner, first things first eh Brian? :0)
>
> OK, where do I start?
>
> For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
> you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
> Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
>
> That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
> of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
> Richard was never Duke of York.
>
> Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
> Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
> York.
>
> His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
> not York.
>
> Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
> mutter.)
>
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
>
> The latest edition of _The National Trust Magazine_ contains an
> article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
> statement:-
>
> 'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
> well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
> Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust Magazine.....where do they get their
writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard could have done a bit of
googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they take the complaints
seriously. I sent off an email months ago to some tourist board (or was it a county
council?) concerning similar blatant errors they had made regarding Richard on their
website and heard nothing back from them.
Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner, first things first eh Brian? :0)
>
> OK, where do I start?
>
> For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
> you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
> Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
>
> That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
> of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
> Richard was never Duke of York.
>
> Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
> Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
> York.
>
> His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
> not York.
>
> Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
> mutter.)
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 17:24:02
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
>>
> That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust
Magazine.....where do they get their
> writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard could
have done a bit of
> googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they
take the complaints
> seriously.
I have received quite a nice e-mail back from the Trust. They say the
piece was checked by the Tourist Board! If so, someone there wants
shooting. Lord above, if there's one place where Richard should get a
good press, or at least some positive comments, it is York. I can't
think of many medieval kings whose passing was recorded with real
regret by a civic body, as his was by York!
Anyway apparently several folk have made the point.
> Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner, first
things first eh Brian? :0)
I'm told it can be salvaged. :-) I have a lovely wife, I adore her.
Note bene all singletons. It is dangerous to leave a writer in charge
of cooking unless the PC is in the kitchen...
Brian W
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
>>
> That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust
Magazine.....where do they get their
> writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard could
have done a bit of
> googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they
take the complaints
> seriously.
I have received quite a nice e-mail back from the Trust. They say the
piece was checked by the Tourist Board! If so, someone there wants
shooting. Lord above, if there's one place where Richard should get a
good press, or at least some positive comments, it is York. I can't
think of many medieval kings whose passing was recorded with real
regret by a civic body, as his was by York!
Anyway apparently several folk have made the point.
> Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner, first
things first eh Brian? :0)
I'm told it can be salvaged. :-) I have a lovely wife, I adore her.
Note bene all singletons. It is dangerous to leave a writer in charge
of cooking unless the PC is in the kitchen...
Brian W
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 18:20:37
--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust
> Magazine.....where do they get their
> > writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard
could
> have done a bit of
> > googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they
> take the complaints
> > seriously.
>
> I have received quite a nice e-mail back from the Trust. They say
the
> piece was checked by the Tourist Board! If so, someone there wants
> shooting. Lord above, if there's one place where Richard should get
a
> good press, or at least some positive comments, it is York. I can't
> think of many medieval kings whose passing was recorded with real
> regret by a civic body, as his was by York!
>
> Anyway apparently several folk have made the point.
>
>
> > Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner,
first
> things first eh Brian? :0)
>
> I'm told it can be salvaged. :-) I have a lovely wife, I adore her.
>
> Note bene all singletons. It is dangerous to leave a writer in
charge
> of cooking unless the PC is in the kitchen...
>
> Brian W
>
........... or you could try a laptop .......
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust
> Magazine.....where do they get their
> > writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard
could
> have done a bit of
> > googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they
> take the complaints
> > seriously.
>
> I have received quite a nice e-mail back from the Trust. They say
the
> piece was checked by the Tourist Board! If so, someone there wants
> shooting. Lord above, if there's one place where Richard should get
a
> good press, or at least some positive comments, it is York. I can't
> think of many medieval kings whose passing was recorded with real
> regret by a civic body, as his was by York!
>
> Anyway apparently several folk have made the point.
>
>
> > Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner,
first
> things first eh Brian? :0)
>
> I'm told it can be salvaged. :-) I have a lovely wife, I adore her.
>
> Note bene all singletons. It is dangerous to leave a writer in
charge
> of cooking unless the PC is in the kitchen...
>
> Brian W
>
........... or you could try a laptop .......
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 19:58:55
I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
Dear Mr Bale,
Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
Yours sincerely,
Debbie
Debbie Schrieber
Assistant Editor
The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
01793 817716
On 17 Feb 2009, at 17:03, eileen wrote:
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The latest edition of _The National Trust Magazine_ contains an
>> article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
>> statement:-
>>
>> 'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
>> well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
>> Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
>
> That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust
> Magazine.....where do they get their
> writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard could
> have done a bit of
> googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they
> take the complaints
> seriously. I sent off an email months ago to some tourist board
> (or was it a county
> council?) concerning similar blatant errors they had made
> regarding Richard on their
> website and heard nothing back from them.
>
> Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner, first
> things first eh Brian? :0)
>>
>> OK, where do I start?
>>
>> For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
>> you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
>> Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
>>
>> That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
>> of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
>> Richard was never Duke of York.
>>
>> Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
>> Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
>> York.
>>
>> His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
>> not York.
>>
>> Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
>> mutter.)
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Dear Mr Bale,
Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
Yours sincerely,
Debbie
Debbie Schrieber
Assistant Editor
The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
01793 817716
On 17 Feb 2009, at 17:03, eileen wrote:
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The latest edition of _The National Trust Magazine_ contains an
>> article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
>> statement:-
>>
>> 'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
>> well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
>> Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
>
> That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust
> Magazine.....where do they get their
> writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard could
> have done a bit of
> googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they
> take the complaints
> seriously. I sent off an email months ago to some tourist board
> (or was it a county
> council?) concerning similar blatant errors they had made
> regarding Richard on their
> website and heard nothing back from them.
>
> Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner, first
> things first eh Brian? :0)
>>
>> OK, where do I start?
>>
>> For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
>> you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
>> Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
>>
>> That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
>> of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
>> Richard was never Duke of York.
>>
>> Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
>> Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
>> York.
>>
>> His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
>> not York.
>>
>> Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
>> mutter.)
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 20:51:22
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
>
> Dear Mr Bale,
>
> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
So......Miss Sartain went all the way to York spent several days there, was probably paid
very good money/expenses and the information she gleaned from that was that Richard
was a wicked king and is probably buried in beneath a car park there.......ummmmm.
right! I suggest the National Trust get their act sorted out and start paying attention to
what tripe is getting printed in their magazine. Because seriously there will be people that
will read this and believe it because the National Trust is, I believe, an organisation that is
considered trustworthy, knowledgeable and in possession of the facts. How wrong can
you be!!!
Why Debbie Schrieber thinks it is OK because it 'was checked by the tourist board' is
beyond me.
Eileen
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Debbie
> Debbie Schrieber
> Assistant Editor
> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> 01793 817716
>
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2009, at 17:03, eileen wrote:
>
> > --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> > <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The latest edition of _The National Trust Magazine_ contains an
> >> article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
> >> statement:-
> >>
> >> 'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
> >> well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
> >> Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
> >
> > That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust
> > Magazine.....where do they get their
> > writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard could
> > have done a bit of
> > googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they
> > take the complaints
> > seriously. I sent off an email months ago to some tourist board
> > (or was it a county
> > council?) concerning similar blatant errors they had made
> > regarding Richard on their
> > website and heard nothing back from them.
> >
> > Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner, first
> > things first eh Brian? :0)
> >>
> >> OK, where do I start?
> >>
> >> For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
> >> you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
> >> Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
> >>
> >> That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
> >> of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
> >> Richard was never Duke of York.
> >>
> >> Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
> >> Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
> >> York.
> >>
> >> His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
> >> not York.
> >>
> >> Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
> >> mutter.)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
>
> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
>
> Dear Mr Bale,
>
> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
So......Miss Sartain went all the way to York spent several days there, was probably paid
very good money/expenses and the information she gleaned from that was that Richard
was a wicked king and is probably buried in beneath a car park there.......ummmmm.
right! I suggest the National Trust get their act sorted out and start paying attention to
what tripe is getting printed in their magazine. Because seriously there will be people that
will read this and believe it because the National Trust is, I believe, an organisation that is
considered trustworthy, knowledgeable and in possession of the facts. How wrong can
you be!!!
Why Debbie Schrieber thinks it is OK because it 'was checked by the tourist board' is
beyond me.
Eileen
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Debbie
> Debbie Schrieber
> Assistant Editor
> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> 01793 817716
>
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2009, at 17:03, eileen wrote:
>
> > --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> > <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The latest edition of _The National Trust Magazine_ contains an
> >> article about York - unfortunately it's marred by the following
> >> statement:-
> >>
> >> 'Richard III's bloody antics have been recounted by Shakespeare, as
> >> well as in the mocking nursery rhyme 'The Grand Old Duke of York'.
> >> Some say that the wicked king's body now lies under a city car park.'
> >
> > That is really, really sloppy of the National Trust
> > Magazine.....where do they get their
> > writers from. Even someone totally disinterested in Richard could
> > have done a bit of
> > googling and come up with something more accurate. I hope they
> > take the complaints
> > seriously. I sent off an email months ago to some tourist board
> > (or was it a county
> > council?) concerning similar blatant errors they had made
> > regarding Richard on their
> > website and heard nothing back from them.
> >
> > Hope you did not get in too much trouble over burnt dinner, first
> > things first eh Brian? :0)
> >>
> >> OK, where do I start?
> >>
> >> For the nth time, Shakespeare was a *dramatist*, not a historian. If
> >> you're going to quote *fiction* about Richard, why not _The Sunne in
> >> Splendor_? Or _Alianore Audley_?
> >>
> >> That nursery rhyme was about an 18th Century Duke of York, son of one
> >> of the Georges. A clue to it not relating to Richard III is that
> >> Richard was never Duke of York.
> >>
> >> Richard was not an outstandingly wicked king by medieval standards.
> >> Far from it. If there was one place he was positively *loved* it was
> >> York.
> >>
> >> His body may lie under a car park, but if it does it's in Leicester,
> >> not York.
> >>
> >> Makes me wonder why the Richard III Society bothers... (Mutter,
> >> mutter.)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 20:53:23
Dear Paul -
I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of the National
Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist board in York
as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good way to educate
the members of the board about the positive relationship which once existed
between Richard and York.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
email - jltournier@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_____
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
Dear Mr Bale,
Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
Yours sincerely,
Debbie
Debbie Schrieber
Assistant Editor
The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
01793 817716
I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of the National
Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist board in York
as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good way to educate
the members of the board about the positive relationship which once existed
between Richard and York.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
email - jltournier@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_____
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
Dear Mr Bale,
Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
Yours sincerely,
Debbie
Debbie Schrieber
Assistant Editor
The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
01793 817716
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 21:22:00
--- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Paul -
>
>
>
> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of the National
> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather strong terms and have
suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next magazine. I pointed out to
them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after spending time in York had
not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York had with Richard and how
sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the Trust I am really, really
disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
>
>
>
> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist board in York
> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good way to educate
> the members of the board about the positive relationship which once existed
> between Richard and York.
Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to help tourists. They are not
historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my experience, they are that hot
anyway.
Eileen
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> email - jltournier@...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
>
>
>
> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
>
> Dear Mr Bale,
>
> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Debbie
> Debbie Schrieber
> Assistant Editor
> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> 01793 817716
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
wrote:
>
> Dear Paul -
>
>
>
> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of the National
> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather strong terms and have
suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next magazine. I pointed out to
them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after spending time in York had
not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York had with Richard and how
sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the Trust I am really, really
disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
>
>
>
> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist board in York
> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good way to educate
> the members of the board about the positive relationship which once existed
> between Richard and York.
Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to help tourists. They are not
historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my experience, they are that hot
anyway.
Eileen
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> email - jltournier@...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
>
>
>
> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
>
> Dear Mr Bale,
>
> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Debbie
> Debbie Schrieber
> Assistant Editor
> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> 01793 817716
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 21:36:59
Is it possible to contact Ms. Sartain herself (do we know who and/or what she is in relation to the publication)? Could it a possibility that, by approaching her in the right way, we could turn her into a convert?
Perversely,
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
>Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard III and York
>
>--- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> Dear Paul -
>>
>>
>>
>> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of the National
>> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
>
>Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather strong terms and have
>suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next magazine. I pointed out to
>them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after spending time in York had
>not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York had with Richard and how
>sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the Trust I am really, really
>disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist board in York
>> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good way to educate
>> the members of the board about the positive relationship which once existed
>> between Richard and York.
>
>Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to help tourists. They are not
>historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my experience, they are that hot
>anyway.
>Eileen
>>
>>
>>
>> Johanne
>>
>>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>
>> email - jltournier@...
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From:
>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
>> Bale
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
>>
>>
>>
>> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
>>
>> Dear Mr Bale,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
>> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
>> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
>> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
>> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
>> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
>> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Debbie
>> Debbie Schrieber
>> Assistant Editor
>> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
>> 01793 817716
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Perversely,
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
>Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard III and York
>
>--- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> Dear Paul -
>>
>>
>>
>> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of the National
>> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
>
>Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather strong terms and have
>suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next magazine. I pointed out to
>them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after spending time in York had
>not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York had with Richard and how
>sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the Trust I am really, really
>disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist board in York
>> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good way to educate
>> the members of the board about the positive relationship which once existed
>> between Richard and York.
>
>Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to help tourists. They are not
>historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my experience, they are that hot
>anyway.
>Eileen
>>
>>
>>
>> Johanne
>>
>>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>
>> email - jltournier@...
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From:
>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
>> Bale
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
>>
>>
>>
>> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
>>
>> Dear Mr Bale,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
>> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
>> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
>> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
>> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
>> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
>> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Debbie
>> Debbie Schrieber
>> Assistant Editor
>> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
>> 01793 817716
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 21:56:04
--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Is it possible to contact Ms. Sartain herself (do we know who and/or what she is in
relation to the publication)? Could it a possibility that, by approaching her in the right
way, we could turn her into a convert?
As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
Eileen
>
> Perversely,
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> >Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> >
> >--- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Paul -
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of the National
> >> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
> >
> >Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather strong terms and have
> >suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next magazine. I pointed out
to
> >them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after spending time in York
had
> >not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York had with Richard and
how
> >sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the Trust I am really, really
> >disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist board in York
> >> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good way to educate
> >> the members of the board about the positive relationship which once existed
> >> between Richard and York.
> >
> >Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to help tourists. They are
not
> >historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my experience, they are that hot
> >anyway.
> >Eileen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Johanne
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> Johanne L. Tournier
> >>
> >> email - jltournier@
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _____
> >>
> >> From:
> >> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> >> Bale
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
> >>
> >> Dear Mr Bale,
> >>
> >> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
> >> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
> >> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
> >> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
> >> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
> >> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
> >> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
> >>
> >> Yours sincerely,
> >>
> >> Debbie
> >> Debbie Schrieber
> >> Assistant Editor
> >> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> >> 01793 817716
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Is it possible to contact Ms. Sartain herself (do we know who and/or what she is in
relation to the publication)? Could it a possibility that, by approaching her in the right
way, we could turn her into a convert?
As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
Eileen
>
> Perversely,
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> >Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> >
> >--- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Paul -
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of the National
> >> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
> >
> >Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather strong terms and have
> >suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next magazine. I pointed out
to
> >them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after spending time in York
had
> >not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York had with Richard and
how
> >sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the Trust I am really, really
> >disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist board in York
> >> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good way to educate
> >> the members of the board about the positive relationship which once existed
> >> between Richard and York.
> >
> >Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to help tourists. They are
not
> >historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my experience, they are that hot
> >anyway.
> >Eileen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Johanne
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> Johanne L. Tournier
> >>
> >> email - jltournier@
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _____
> >>
> >> From:
> >> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> >> Bale
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
> >>
> >> Dear Mr Bale,
> >>
> >> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days Away
> >> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and, as you
> >> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be taking
> >> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the writer.
> >> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information and the
> >> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing to
> >> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
> >>
> >> Yours sincerely,
> >>
> >> Debbie
> >> Debbie Schrieber
> >> Assistant Editor
> >> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> >> 01793 817716
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-17 23:18:11
Hi Maria, Eileen & All
T'would appear Ms Vicky Sartain is the NT mag's Deputy Editor! No email back yet for me to my protest about this, but I'll post if one arrives!
Regards, Lorraine
--- On Tue, 2/17/09, eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III and York
To:
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 9:56 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Maria <ejbronte@.. .> wrote:
>
> Is it possible to contact Ms. Sartain herself (do we know who and/or what she is in
relation to the publication) ? Could it a possibility that, by approaching her in the right
way, we could turn her into a convert?
As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
Eileen
>
> Perversely,
>
> Maria
> elena@...
,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News
Fashion News
What's the word on
fashion and style?
Sell Online
Start selling with
our award-winning
e-commerce tools.
Yahoo! Groups
w/ John McEnroe
Join the All-Bran
Day 10 Club.
.
T'would appear Ms Vicky Sartain is the NT mag's Deputy Editor! No email back yet for me to my protest about this, but I'll post if one arrives!
Regards, Lorraine
--- On Tue, 2/17/09, eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III and York
To:
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 9:56 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Maria <ejbronte@.. .> wrote:
>
> Is it possible to contact Ms. Sartain herself (do we know who and/or what she is in
relation to the publication) ? Could it a possibility that, by approaching her in the right
way, we could turn her into a convert?
As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
Eileen
>
> Perversely,
>
> Maria
> elena@...
,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News
Fashion News
What's the word on
fashion and style?
Sell Online
Start selling with
our award-winning
e-commerce tools.
Yahoo! Groups
w/ John McEnroe
Join the All-Bran
Day 10 Club.
.
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-18 13:24:59
Oh, sure! Hanging, drawing and quartering takes a heck of a lot of
time, and it's messy too. Conversion is neater and we build up our
own forces.
Maria
elena@...
> As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
> Eileen
>
>
> >
> > Perversely,
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@>
> > >Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> > >
> > >--- In , "Johanne
Tournier" <jltournier@>
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear Paul -
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of
the National
> > >> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
> > >
> > >Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather
strong terms and have
> > >suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next
magazine. I pointed out
> to
> > >them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after
spending time in York
> had
> > >not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York
had with Richard and
> how
> > >sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the
Trust I am really, really
> > >disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the
tourist board in York
> > >> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good
way to educate
> > >> the members of the board about the positive relationship
which once existed
> > >> between Richard and York.
> > >
> > >Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to
help tourists. They are
> not
> > >historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my
experience, they are that hot
> > >anyway.
> > >Eileen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Johanne
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> Johanne L. Tournier
> > >>
> > >> email - jltournier@
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _____
> > >>
> > >> From:
> > >> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
Paul Trevor
> > >> Bale
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> > >> To:
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and
York
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
> > >>
> > >> Dear Mr Bale,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days
Away
> > >> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors
and, as you
> > >> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be
taking
> > >> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the
writer.
> > >> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information
and the
> > >> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is
disappointing to
> > >> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
> > >>
> > >> Yours sincerely,
> > >>
> > >> Debbie
> > >> Debbie Schrieber
> > >> Assistant Editor
> > >> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> > >> 01793 817716
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
time, and it's messy too. Conversion is neater and we build up our
own forces.
Maria
elena@...
> As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
> Eileen
>
>
> >
> > Perversely,
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@>
> > >Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> > >
> > >--- In , "Johanne
Tournier" <jltournier@>
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear Paul -
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of
the National
> > >> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
> > >
> > >Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather
strong terms and have
> > >suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next
magazine. I pointed out
> to
> > >them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after
spending time in York
> had
> > >not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York
had with Richard and
> how
> > >sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the
Trust I am really, really
> > >disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the
tourist board in York
> > >> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good
way to educate
> > >> the members of the board about the positive relationship
which once existed
> > >> between Richard and York.
> > >
> > >Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to
help tourists. They are
> not
> > >historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my
experience, they are that hot
> > >anyway.
> > >Eileen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Johanne
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> Johanne L. Tournier
> > >>
> > >> email - jltournier@
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _____
> > >>
> > >> From:
> > >> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
Paul Trevor
> > >> Bale
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> > >> To:
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and
York
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
> > >>
> > >> Dear Mr Bale,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days
Away
> > >> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors
and, as you
> > >> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be
taking
> > >> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the
writer.
> > >> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information
and the
> > >> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is
disappointing to
> > >> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
> > >>
> > >> Yours sincerely,
> > >>
> > >> Debbie
> > >> Debbie Schrieber
> > >> Assistant Editor
> > >> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> > >> 01793 817716
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-18 23:19:35
Eileen,
Not drawing, hanging and quartering for a woman - anatomically
impossible - but burning!
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@>
wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to contact Ms. Sartain herself (do we know who
and/or what she is in
> relation to the publication)? Could it a possibility that, by
approaching her in the right
> way, we could turn her into a convert?
>
> As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
> Eileen
>
>
> >
> > Perversely,
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@>
> > >Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> > >
> > >--- In , "Johanne
Tournier" <jltournier@>
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear Paul -
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of
the National
> > >> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
> > >
> > >Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather
strong terms and have
> > >suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next
magazine. I pointed out
> to
> > >them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after
spending time in York
> had
> > >not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York
had with Richard and
> how
> > >sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the
Trust I am really, really
> > >disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist
board in York
> > >> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good
way to educate
> > >> the members of the board about the positive relationship which
once existed
> > >> between Richard and York.
> > >
> > >Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to
help tourists. They are
> not
> > >historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my
experience, they are that hot
> > >anyway.
> > >Eileen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Johanne
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> Johanne L. Tournier
> > >>
> > >> email - jltournier@
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _____
> > >>
> > >> From:
> > >> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
Paul Trevor
> > >> Bale
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> > >> To:
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and
York
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
> > >>
> > >> Dear Mr Bale,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days
Away
> > >> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and,
as you
> > >> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be
taking
> > >> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the
writer.
> > >> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information
and the
> > >> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing
to
> > >> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
> > >>
> > >> Yours sincerely,
> > >>
> > >> Debbie
> > >> Debbie Schrieber
> > >> Assistant Editor
> > >> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> > >> 01793 817716
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Not drawing, hanging and quartering for a woman - anatomically
impossible - but burning!
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@>
wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to contact Ms. Sartain herself (do we know who
and/or what she is in
> relation to the publication)? Could it a possibility that, by
approaching her in the right
> way, we could turn her into a convert?
>
> As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
> Eileen
>
>
> >
> > Perversely,
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@>
> > >Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> > >
> > >--- In , "Johanne
Tournier" <jltournier@>
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear Paul -
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of
the National
> > >> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
> > >
> > >Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather
strong terms and have
> > >suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next
magazine. I pointed out
> to
> > >them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after
spending time in York
> had
> > >not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York
had with Richard and
> how
> > >sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the
Trust I am really, really
> > >disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist
board in York
> > >> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good
way to educate
> > >> the members of the board about the positive relationship which
once existed
> > >> between Richard and York.
> > >
> > >Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to
help tourists. They are
> not
> > >historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my
experience, they are that hot
> > >anyway.
> > >Eileen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Johanne
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> Johanne L. Tournier
> > >>
> > >> email - jltournier@
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _____
> > >>
> > >> From:
> > >> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
Paul Trevor
> > >> Bale
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> > >> To:
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and
York
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
> > >>
> > >> Dear Mr Bale,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days
Away
> > >> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and,
as you
> > >> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be
taking
> > >> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the
writer.
> > >> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information
and the
> > >> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing
to
> > >> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
> > >>
> > >> Yours sincerely,
> > >>
> > >> Debbie
> > >> Debbie Schrieber
> > >> Assistant Editor
> > >> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> > >> 01793 817716
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-19 13:10:44
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
> Eileen,
>
> Not drawing, hanging and quartering for a woman - anatomically
> impossible - but burning!
OMG your right Stephen!!! I dont want to appear too hard on this lady, a simple apology
and/or a promise to print something in the next magazine correcting these errors would
suffice. However, still have not had a reply to my email only a very quick one
acknowledging my email and that it has been directed to another department. If I dont
hear within the next couple of days they will be hearing from me again but I will take it
higher. Nothing gets me madder than being ignored!!!
eileen
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it possible to contact Ms. Sartain herself (do we know who
> and/or what she is in
> > relation to the publication)? Could it a possibility that, by
> approaching her in the right
> > way, we could turn her into a convert?
> >
> > As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Perversely,
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > elena@
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@>
> > > >Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
> > > >To:
> > > >Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> > > >
> > > >--- In , "Johanne
> Tournier" <jltournier@>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Dear Paul -
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of
> the National
> > > >> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
> > > >
> > > >Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather
> strong terms and have
> > > >suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next
> magazine. I pointed out
> > to
> > > >them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after
> spending time in York
> > had
> > > >not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York
> had with Richard and
> > how
> > > >sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the
> Trust I am really, really
> > > >disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist
> board in York
> > > >> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good
> way to educate
> > > >> the members of the board about the positive relationship which
> once existed
> > > >> between Richard and York.
> > > >
> > > >Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to
> help tourists. They are
> > not
> > > >historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my
> experience, they are that hot
> > > >anyway.
> > > >Eileen
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Johanne
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>
> > > >> Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >>
> > > >> email - jltournier@
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _____
> > > >>
> > > >> From:
> > > >> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> Paul Trevor
> > > >> Bale
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and
> York
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
> > > >>
> > > >> Dear Mr Bale,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days
> Away
> > > >> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and,
> as you
> > > >> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be
> taking
> > > >> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the
> writer.
> > > >> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information
> and the
> > > >> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing
> to
> > > >> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yours sincerely,
> > > >>
> > > >> Debbie
> > > >> Debbie Schrieber
> > > >> Assistant Editor
> > > >> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> > > >> 01793 817716
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
wrote:
>
> Eileen,
>
> Not drawing, hanging and quartering for a woman - anatomically
> impossible - but burning!
OMG your right Stephen!!! I dont want to appear too hard on this lady, a simple apology
and/or a promise to print something in the next magazine correcting these errors would
suffice. However, still have not had a reply to my email only a very quick one
acknowledging my email and that it has been directed to another department. If I dont
hear within the next couple of days they will be hearing from me again but I will take it
higher. Nothing gets me madder than being ignored!!!
eileen
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it possible to contact Ms. Sartain herself (do we know who
> and/or what she is in
> > relation to the publication)? Could it a possibility that, by
> approaching her in the right
> > way, we could turn her into a convert?
> >
> > As opposed to hang, drawing and quartering her Maria? :0)
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Perversely,
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > elena@
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@>
> > > >Sent: Feb 17, 2009 4:21 PM
> > > >To:
> > > >Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> > > >
> > > >--- In , "Johanne
> Tournier" <jltournier@>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Dear Paul -
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I would have expected a higher standard from a publication of
> the National
> > > >> Trust, LOL! At least they responded quickly to your email.
> > > >
> > > >Ive emailed them too....Ive put it to them in ummmm rather
> strong terms and have
> > > >suggested that they print some sort of rebuttal in their next
> magazine. I pointed out
> > to
> > > >them how astonished I was that the author of this story, after
> spending time in York
> > had
> > > >not discovered about the good relationship the citizens of York
> had with Richard and
> > how
> > > >sorry they were to hear of is death......As a member of the
> Trust I am really, really
> > > >disapointed in them. Its just too sloppy for words..
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Perhaps some thought should be given to contacting the tourist
> board in York
> > > >> as well to express the Society's concerns. It might be a good
> way to educate
> > > >> the members of the board about the positive relationship which
> once existed
> > > >> between Richard and York.
> > > >
> > > >Why did the author ask the tourist board. They are there to
> help tourists. They are
> > not
> > > >historians. To tell you the truth, I dont think, from my
> experience, they are that hot
> > > >anyway.
> > > >Eileen
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Johanne
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>
> > > >> Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >>
> > > >> email - jltournier@
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _____
> > > >>
> > > >> From:
> > > >> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> Paul Trevor
> > > >> Bale
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and
> York
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I e-mailed them earlier today and got his back:-
> > > >>
> > > >> Dear Mr Bale,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you very much for your email regarding the recent Days
> Away
> > > >> feature. You are right to point out the historical errors and,
> as you
> > > >> can guess, you are not the first person to do so. I will be
> taking
> > > >> time to discuss this element of the feature further with the
> writer.
> > > >> Miss Sartain spent several days in York gathering information
> and the
> > > >> piece was checked by the tourist board, so it is disappointing
> to
> > > >> discover that there are so many inaccuracies.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yours sincerely,
> > > >>
> > > >> Debbie
> > > >> Debbie Schrieber
> > > >> Assistant Editor
> > > >> The National Trust Magazine (ABC 1,821,846)
> > > >> 01793 817716
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-19 19:10:45
Hello everybody,
I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the better, IMO. Especially editors who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
Optimistically,
Marion
I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the better, IMO. Especially editors who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
Optimistically,
Marion
Richard III and York
2009-02-19 19:42:20
Hi Marion, Eileen & Maria
I did contact the York Tourist Office as well as write to the Trust, pointing out the wealth of information the City Archives have about Richard's relationship with York as both Duke of Gloucester and monarch. In my letter to them both I listed about a dozen positives about Richard and suggested some pointers for further reading and/or research, including the Society.
It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with the Tourist Information Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe it was just handy? (Some TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's history - Durham has, for instance).
But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the City's Public Library Reference Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal experience that they were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
Regards, Lorraine
I got
--- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III and York
To:
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
Hello everybody,
I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the better, IMO. Especially editors who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
Optimistically,
Marion
I did contact the York Tourist Office as well as write to the Trust, pointing out the wealth of information the City Archives have about Richard's relationship with York as both Duke of Gloucester and monarch. In my letter to them both I listed about a dozen positives about Richard and suggested some pointers for further reading and/or research, including the Society.
It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with the Tourist Information Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe it was just handy? (Some TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's history - Durham has, for instance).
But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the City's Public Library Reference Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal experience that they were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
Regards, Lorraine
I got
--- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III and York
To:
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
Hello everybody,
I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the better, IMO. Especially editors who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
Optimistically,
Marion
Re: Richard III and York
2009-02-28 13:23:39
--- In , l pickering <lpickering2@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marion, Eileen & Maria
>
> I did contact the York Tourist Office as well as write to the Trust, pointing out the wealth
of information the City Archives have about Richard's relationship with York as both Duke
of Gloucester and monarch. In my letter to them both I listed about a dozen positives
about Richard and suggested some pointers for further reading and/or research, including
the Society.
After a SECOND email to the Trust, I did receive a reply from the Editor, who said that
these errors will be mentioned in the Letters page of the summer edition of the
magazine.....hmmmmmmm...
Eileen
>
> It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with the Tourist Information
Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe it was just handy? (Some
TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's history - Durham has, for
instance).
>
> But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the City's Public Library Reference
Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal experience that they
were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
>
> Regards, Lorraine
>
>
>
> I got
> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> To:
> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello everybody,
>
>
>
> I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the better, IMO. Especially editors
who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
>
>
>
> Optimistically,
>
>
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Marion, Eileen & Maria
>
> I did contact the York Tourist Office as well as write to the Trust, pointing out the wealth
of information the City Archives have about Richard's relationship with York as both Duke
of Gloucester and monarch. In my letter to them both I listed about a dozen positives
about Richard and suggested some pointers for further reading and/or research, including
the Society.
After a SECOND email to the Trust, I did receive a reply from the Editor, who said that
these errors will be mentioned in the Letters page of the summer edition of the
magazine.....hmmmmmmm...
Eileen
>
> It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with the Tourist Information
Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe it was just handy? (Some
TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's history - Durham has, for
instance).
>
> But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the City's Public Library Reference
Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal experience that they
were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
>
> Regards, Lorraine
>
>
>
> I got
> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> To:
> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello everybody,
>
>
>
> I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the better, IMO. Especially editors
who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
>
>
>
> Optimistically,
>
>
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-03-05 11:15:08
--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> -
>
> After a SECOND email to the Trust, I did receive a reply from the Editor, who said that
> these errors will be mentioned in the Letters page of the summer edition of the
> magazine.....hmmmmmmm...
>
> Eileen
I have received an email from the NT today from another Assistant Editor, how many are there?, apologising again but FOREWARNING me there will be no apology printed as they have to give precedence to those (email??) that "generate the most debate". The fact that the Tourist Board OK'd the article is mentioned again and I feel that is where they are trying to apportion the blame for a very shabby piece of writing. I shall respond to the email and once again& tell them what I think but obviously they really dont give a damn. Im tempted to take it higher actually. Its really not good enough.
Eileen
> >
> > It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with the Tourist Information
> Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe it was just handy? (Some
> TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's history - Durham has, for
> instance).
> >
> > But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the City's Public Library Reference
> Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal experience that they
> were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
> >
> > Regards, Lorraine
> >
> >
> >
> > I got
> > --- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@> wrote:
> > From: marion davis <phaecilia@>
> > Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> > To:
> > Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> >
> >
> > I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the better, IMO. Especially editors
> who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
> >
> >
> >
> > Optimistically,
> >
> >
> >
> > Marion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> -
>
> After a SECOND email to the Trust, I did receive a reply from the Editor, who said that
> these errors will be mentioned in the Letters page of the summer edition of the
> magazine.....hmmmmmmm...
>
> Eileen
I have received an email from the NT today from another Assistant Editor, how many are there?, apologising again but FOREWARNING me there will be no apology printed as they have to give precedence to those (email??) that "generate the most debate". The fact that the Tourist Board OK'd the article is mentioned again and I feel that is where they are trying to apportion the blame for a very shabby piece of writing. I shall respond to the email and once again& tell them what I think but obviously they really dont give a damn. Im tempted to take it higher actually. Its really not good enough.
Eileen
> >
> > It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with the Tourist Information
> Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe it was just handy? (Some
> TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's history - Durham has, for
> instance).
> >
> > But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the City's Public Library Reference
> Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal experience that they
> were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
> >
> > Regards, Lorraine
> >
> >
> >
> > I got
> > --- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@> wrote:
> > From: marion davis <phaecilia@>
> > Subject: Re: Richard III and York
> > To:
> > Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> >
> >
> > I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the better, IMO. Especially editors
> who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
> >
> >
> >
> > Optimistically,
> >
> >
> >
> > Marion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard III and York
2009-03-05 12:25:22
Just how many complaints does it take to be called 'debate'? I know
of at least 6 yourself and myself apart who have contacted them over
this issue!
I'll mail them again as well Eileen. Anyone else join us?
Paul
On 5 Mar 2009, at 11:15, eileen wrote:
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>>
>> -
>
>
>>
>> After a SECOND email to the Trust, I did receive a reply from the
>> Editor, who said that
>> these errors will be mentioned in the Letters page of the summer
>> edition of the
>> magazine.....hmmmmmmm...
>>
>> Eileen
>
> I have received an email from the NT today from another Assistant
> Editor, how many are there?, apologising again but FOREWARNING me
> there will be no apology printed as they have to give precedence to
> those (email??) that "generate the most debate". The fact that the
> Tourist Board OK'd the article is mentioned again and I feel that
> is where they are trying to apportion the blame for a very shabby
> piece of writing. I shall respond to the email and once again&
> tell them what I think but obviously they really dont give a damn.
> Im tempted to take it higher actually. Its really not good enough.
> Eileen
>>>
>>> It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with
>>> the Tourist Information
>> Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe
>> it was just handy? (Some
>> TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's
>> history - Durham has, for
>> instance).
>>>
>>> But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the
>>> City's Public Library Reference
>> Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal
>> experience that they
>> were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
>>>
>>> Regards, Lorraine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I got
>>> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@> wrote:
>>> From: marion davis <phaecilia@>
>>> Subject: Re: Richard III and York
>>> To:
>>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the
>>> better, IMO. Especially editors
>> who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Optimistically,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
of at least 6 yourself and myself apart who have contacted them over
this issue!
I'll mail them again as well Eileen. Anyone else join us?
Paul
On 5 Mar 2009, at 11:15, eileen wrote:
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>>
>> -
>
>
>>
>> After a SECOND email to the Trust, I did receive a reply from the
>> Editor, who said that
>> these errors will be mentioned in the Letters page of the summer
>> edition of the
>> magazine.....hmmmmmmm...
>>
>> Eileen
>
> I have received an email from the NT today from another Assistant
> Editor, how many are there?, apologising again but FOREWARNING me
> there will be no apology printed as they have to give precedence to
> those (email??) that "generate the most debate". The fact that the
> Tourist Board OK'd the article is mentioned again and I feel that
> is where they are trying to apportion the blame for a very shabby
> piece of writing. I shall respond to the email and once again&
> tell them what I think but obviously they really dont give a damn.
> Im tempted to take it higher actually. Its really not good enough.
> Eileen
>>>
>>> It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with
>>> the Tourist Information
>> Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe
>> it was just handy? (Some
>> TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's
>> history - Durham has, for
>> instance).
>>>
>>> But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the
>>> City's Public Library Reference
>> Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal
>> experience that they
>> were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
>>>
>>> Regards, Lorraine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I got
>>> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@> wrote:
>>> From: marion davis <phaecilia@>
>>> Subject: Re: Richard III and York
>>> To:
>>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the
>>> better, IMO. Especially editors
>> who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Optimistically,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Richard III and York
2009-03-06 06:35:21
Hi All
Eileen, thanks for your update. This whole episode is unbelievable, for so many reasons.
My experience so far has been I received a brief but polite reply from an assistant fairly promptly saying she was passing on my letter to the Editor - who has yet to get back to me. The York Tourist Info Office people didn't get back to either, so another letter will be sent, methinks. I tried being reasonable, a la Maria's wise counsel earlier, but nothing gets me madder than being ignored by an organisation or institution, esp. when I suspect it's deliberate.
Tourism is an important revenue generator for cities like York. It's the National Trust. It's taking people's money off them, for heaven's sake. It's important they get their facts right! :-(
Exits left, muttering...
Regards, Rainey
<I have received an email from the NT today from another Assistant Editor, how many are there?, apologising again but FOREWARNING me there will be no apology printed as they have to give precedence to those (email??) that "generate the most debate". The fact that the Tourist Board OK'd the article is mentioned again and I feel that is where they are trying to apportion the blame for a very shabby piece of writing. I shall respond to the email and once again& tell them what I think but obviously they really dont give a damn. Im tempted to take it higher actually. Its really not good enough.
Eileen>
> > It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with the Tourist Information
> Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe it was just handy? (Some
> TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's history - Durham has, for
> instance).
> >
> > But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the City's Public Library Reference
> Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal experience that they
> were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
> >
> > Regards, Lorraine
> >
> >
Eileen, thanks for your update. This whole episode is unbelievable, for so many reasons.
My experience so far has been I received a brief but polite reply from an assistant fairly promptly saying she was passing on my letter to the Editor - who has yet to get back to me. The York Tourist Info Office people didn't get back to either, so another letter will be sent, methinks. I tried being reasonable, a la Maria's wise counsel earlier, but nothing gets me madder than being ignored by an organisation or institution, esp. when I suspect it's deliberate.
Tourism is an important revenue generator for cities like York. It's the National Trust. It's taking people's money off them, for heaven's sake. It's important they get their facts right! :-(
Exits left, muttering...
Regards, Rainey
<I have received an email from the NT today from another Assistant Editor, how many are there?, apologising again but FOREWARNING me there will be no apology printed as they have to give precedence to those (email??) that "generate the most debate". The fact that the Tourist Board OK'd the article is mentioned again and I feel that is where they are trying to apportion the blame for a very shabby piece of writing. I shall respond to the email and once again& tell them what I think but obviously they really dont give a damn. Im tempted to take it higher actually. Its really not good enough.
Eileen>
> > It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with the Tourist Information
> Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe it was just handy? (Some
> TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's history - Durham has, for
> instance).
> >
> > But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the City's Public Library Reference
> Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal experience that they
> were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
> >
> > Regards, Lorraine
> >
> >
Re: Richard III and York
2009-03-08 14:33:31
is there an on line version of the article?
roslyn
--- On Thu, 3/5/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
To:
Received: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 7:25 AM
Just how many complaints does it take to be called 'debate'? I know
of at least 6 yourself and myself apart who have contacted them over
this issue!
I'll mail them again as well Eileen. Anyone else join us?
Paul
On 5 Mar 2009, at 11:15, eileen wrote:
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@ ...> wrote:
>>
>> -
>
>
>>
>> After a SECOND email to the Trust, I did receive a reply from the
>> Editor, who said that
>> these errors will be mentioned in the Letters page of the summer
>> edition of the
>> magazine.... .hmmmmmmm. ..
>>
>> Eileen
>
> I have received an email from the NT today from another Assistant
> Editor, how many are there?, apologising again but FOREWARNING me
> there will be no apology printed as they have to give precedence to
> those (email??) that "generate the most debate". The fact that the
> Tourist Board OK'd the article is mentioned again and I feel that
> is where they are trying to apportion the blame for a very shabby
> piece of writing. I shall respond to the email and once again&
> tell them what I think but obviously they really dont give a damn.
> Im tempted to take it higher actually. Its really not good enough.
> Eileen
>>>
>>> It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with
>>> the Tourist Information
>> Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe
>> it was just handy? (Some
>> TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's
>> history - Durham has, for
>> instance).
>>>
>>> But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the
>>> City's Public Library Reference
>> Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal
>> experience that they
>> were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
>>>
>>> Regards, Lorraine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I got
>>> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@> wrote:
>>> From: marion davis <phaecilia@>
>>> Subject: Re: Richard III and York
>>> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
>>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the
>>> better, IMO. Especially editors
>> who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Optimistically,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
roslyn
--- On Thu, 3/5/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III and York
To:
Received: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 7:25 AM
Just how many complaints does it take to be called 'debate'? I know
of at least 6 yourself and myself apart who have contacted them over
this issue!
I'll mail them again as well Eileen. Anyone else join us?
Paul
On 5 Mar 2009, at 11:15, eileen wrote:
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@ ...> wrote:
>>
>> -
>
>
>>
>> After a SECOND email to the Trust, I did receive a reply from the
>> Editor, who said that
>> these errors will be mentioned in the Letters page of the summer
>> edition of the
>> magazine.... .hmmmmmmm. ..
>>
>> Eileen
>
> I have received an email from the NT today from another Assistant
> Editor, how many are there?, apologising again but FOREWARNING me
> there will be no apology printed as they have to give precedence to
> those (email??) that "generate the most debate". The fact that the
> Tourist Board OK'd the article is mentioned again and I feel that
> is where they are trying to apportion the blame for a very shabby
> piece of writing. I shall respond to the email and once again&
> tell them what I think but obviously they really dont give a damn.
> Im tempted to take it higher actually. Its really not good enough.
> Eileen
>>>
>>> It did strike me as a bit strange that the Trust consulted with
>>> the Tourist Information
>> Office when surely they'd have access to the Internet, but maybe
>> it was just handy? (Some
>> TI offices have staff who are very knowledgeable about a place's
>> history - Durham has, for
>> instance).
>>>
>>> But if *I* was a journo on a jolly to write about York, the
>>> City's Public Library Reference
>> Dept would have been my first port of call - I know from personal
>> experience that they
>> were pretty well-informed about Richard III at one time...
>>>
>>> Regards, Lorraine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I got
>>> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, marion davis <phaecilia@> wrote:
>>> From: marion davis <phaecilia@>
>>> Subject: Re: Richard III and York
>>> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
>>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 7:10 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I vote for Maria's plan. The more Ricardians we have, the
>>> better, IMO. Especially editors
>> who might be willing to educate writers they're editing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Optimistically,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.