Alternative site for Bosworth battle

Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
Has someone red it?
Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?

Thank you

Stefano

--- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@...> wrote:
>
> Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> Has someone red it?
> Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
>
> Thank you
>
> Stefano


I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
"he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."

The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.

Marie

>

Thank You for Your exaustive response

Stefano

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> >
> > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > Has someone red it?
> > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Stefano
>
>
> I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
> a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
> b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
>
> The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
>
> Marie
>
> >
>

You mean 'exhausting'.


--- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thank You for Your exaustive response
>
> Stefano
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > Has someone red it?
> > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > Stefano
> >
> >
> > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
> > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
> > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> >
> > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
>

No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".

Sorry for the misunderstanding

Stefano
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> You mean 'exhausting'.
>
>
> --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> >
> > Stefano
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > >
> > > > Stefano
> > >
> > >
> > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
> > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
> > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > >
> > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@...> wrote:
>
>
> No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
>
> Sorry for the misunderstanding
>
> Stefano

No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at times.

Marie




> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > You mean 'exhausting'.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > >
> > > Stefano
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > >
> > > > > Stefano
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
> > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
> > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > >
> > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi, Marie

Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by Glouchester/Richard.

Stefano

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> >
> > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> >
> > Stefano
>
> No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at times.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You mean 'exhausting'.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > > >
> > > > Stefano
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefano
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
> > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
> > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > > >
> > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Stefano,
This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August 2009 issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and the Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret with his lord, William Hastings....who kept the secret even after Edward 4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless willing to have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: Abikapi2
To:
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
Subject: Curiosity about this period



Hi, Marie

Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by Glouchester/Richard.

Stefano

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> >
> > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> >
> > Stefano
>
> No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at times.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You mean 'exhausting'.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > > >
> > > > Stefano
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefano
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
> > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
> > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > > >
> > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Thank You, I'll look there also.

Stefano

--- In , "Sally Keil" <skeil@...> wrote:
>
> Stefano,
> This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August 2009 issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and the Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret with his lord, William Hastings....who kept the secret even after Edward 4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless willing to have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Abikapi2
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
> Subject: Curiosity about this period
>
>
>
> Hi, Marie
>
> Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by Glouchester/Richard.
>
> Stefano
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> > >
> > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> > >
> > > Stefano
> >
> > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at times.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You mean 'exhausting'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > > > >
> > > > > Stefano
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
> > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
> > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

IMO, this book is well worth reading. I reviewed it on my blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/09/review-of-richard-iii-and-murder-in.\
html> and on Amazon.com (US site). It really makes one think.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

--- In , "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@...> wrote:
>
> Thank You, I'll look there also.
>
> Stefano
>
> --- In , "Sally Keil" skeil@
wrote:
> >
> > Stefano,
> > This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August 2009
issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III
Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and the
Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the
death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby
who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her
family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret
with his lord, William Hastings....who kept the secret even after Edward
4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that
Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless willing to
have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Abikapi2
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
> > Subject: Curiosity about this period
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Marie
> >
> > Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have
any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by
Glouchester/Richard.
> >
> > Stefano
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian
we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> > > >
> > > > Stefano
> > >
> > > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed
say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm
afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at
times.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean 'exhausting'.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In ,
mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In ,
"Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June
2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the
location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two
miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of
Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot,
mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on
foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's
defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me
if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that
there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly
where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the
Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be
unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington,
on the basis that:-
> > > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield
burials in Dadlington church
> > > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle
'Dadlington Field'
> > > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in
Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John
Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council
that he had been.
> > > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone,
Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid
compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops
"at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an
old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent
sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of
us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the
archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and
Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their
finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to
the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> > > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather
fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig
did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the
three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the
shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?),
in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle
site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

interesting. i also was not aware you had written a sci-fi/historical fiction story about richard.
 
from the outline/reviews of your book "this time"; i think it would make for great entertainment as a movie. if handled properly, it would be an excellent tool to educate the masses with regards to the shakespearian mythology.
 
have you any offerings in the wings? the assorted r3 societies should get behind you and push for it to be made. there is a audience in waiting, and with the right cast, director a possible block buster, like "knight's tale".
 
i think keanu reeves would do richard total justice in a portrayal. plus he has the backing and funding to "make" the movie on more than a "b" list budget.
 
here's his contact info.
http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Keanu_Reeves/Contact.asp
 
roslyn
--- On Mon, 12/7/09, Joan <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:


From: Joan <r3_Joansz@...>
Subject: Re: Curiosity about this period
To:
Received: Monday, December 7, 2009, 5:42 PM


 



IMO, this book is well worth reading. I reviewed it on my blog
<http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/2009/ 09/review- of-richard- iii-and-murder- in.\
html> and on Amazon.com (US site). It really makes one think.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@. ..> wrote:
>
> Thank You, I'll look there also.
>
> Stefano
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sally Keil" skeil@
wrote:
> >
> > Stefano,
> > This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August 2009
issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III
Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and the
Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the
death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby
who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her
family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret
with his lord, William Hastings.... who kept the secret even after Edward
4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that
Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless willing to
have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Abikapi2
> > To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
> > Subject: Curiosity about this period
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Marie
> >
> > Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have
any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by
Glouchester/ Richard.
> >
> > Stefano
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian
we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> > > >
> > > > Stefano
> > >
> > > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed
say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm
afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at
times.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean 'exhausting' .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
"Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June
2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the
location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two
miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of
Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot,
mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on
foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's
defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me
if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that
there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly
where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the
Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be
unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington,
on the basis that:-
> > > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield
burials in Dadlington church
> > > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle
'Dadlington Field'
> > > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in
Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John
Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council
that he had been.
> > > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone,
Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid
compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops
"at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an
old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent
sentence of which is, in translation: -
> > > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of
us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the
archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and
Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their
finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to
the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> > > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather
fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig
did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the
three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the
shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?),
in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle
site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Somehow the young actor in the current crop of UPS TV commercials
reminds me of the portraits of Richard. The young man in these ads-
he stands in front of a white board and draws various UPS symbols
which then become animated- has longish dark hair, a smaller but
muscular build, straight nose, and somewhat sharp features. In repose
his face is average, but it lights up when he smiles. That brings to
mind some of the comments on Richard's appearance, Has anyone else
noticed this ad?


On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:58 PM, fayre rose wrote:

>
> interesting. i also was not aware you had written a sci-fi/
> historical fiction story about richard.
>
> from the outline/reviews of your book "this time"; i think it would
> make for great entertainment as a movie. if handled properly, it
> would be an excellent tool to educate the masses with regards to the
> shakespearian mythology.
>
> have you any offerings in the wings? the assorted r3 societies
> should get behind you and push for it to be made. there is a
> audience in waiting, and with the right cast, director a possible
> block buster, like "knight's tale".
>
> i think keanu reeves would do richard total justice in a portrayal.
> plus he has the backing and funding to "make" the movie on more than
> a "b" list budget.
>
> here's his contact info.
> http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Keanu_Reeves/Contact.asp
>
> roslyn
> --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Joan <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>
> From: Joan <r3_Joansz@...>
> Subject: Re: Curiosity about this period
> To:
> Received: Monday, December 7, 2009, 5:42 PM
>
>
>
> IMO, this book is well worth reading. I reviewed it on my blog
> <http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/2009/ 09/review- of-richard- iii-and-
> murder- in.\
> html> and on Amazon.com (US site). It really makes one think.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
> website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
> <bisudagan@. ..> wrote:
> >
> > Thank You, I'll look there also.
> >
> > Stefano
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sally Keil" skeil@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Stefano,
> > > This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August
> 2009
> issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III
> Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and
> the
> Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the
> death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby
> who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her
> family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret
> with his lord, William Hastings.... who kept the secret even after
> Edward
> 4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
> marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that
> Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless
> willing to
> have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Abikapi2
> > > To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
> > > Subject: Curiosity about this period
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, Marie
> > >
> > > Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have
> any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by
> Glouchester/ Richard.
> > >
> > > Stefano
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
> <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian
> we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> > > > >
> > > > > Stefano
> > > >
> > > > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed
> say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly.
> I'm
> afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at
> times.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
> mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean 'exhausting' .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
> <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
> mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
> "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June
> 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the
> location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two
> miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of
> Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot,
> mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry
> was on
> foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's
> defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > > > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me
> if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that
> there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly
> where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the
> Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors
> to be
> unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it
> up;
> > > > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington,
> on the basis that:-
> > > > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield
> burials in Dadlington church
> > > > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle
> 'Dadlington Field'
> > > > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in
> Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John
> Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council
> that he had been.
> > > > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone,
> Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid
> compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops
> "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an
> old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent
> sentence of which is, in translation: -
> > > > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of
> us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the
> archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and
> Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their
> finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to
> the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation
> grant.
> > > > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather
> fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig
> did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between
> the
> three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where
> the
> shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km
> mentioned?),
> in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle
> site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wow! How right you are!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Florence Dove" <mdove9@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: Curiosity about this period


> Somehow the young actor in the current crop of UPS TV commercials
> reminds me of the portraits of Richard. The young man in these ads-
> he stands in front of a white board and draws various UPS symbols
> which then become animated- has longish dark hair, a smaller but
> muscular build, straight nose, and somewhat sharp features. In repose
> his face is average, but it lights up when he smiles. That brings to
> mind some of the comments on Richard's appearance, Has anyone else
> noticed this ad?
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:58 PM, fayre rose wrote:
>
>>
>> interesting. i also was not aware you had written a sci-fi/
>> historical fiction story about richard.
>>
>> from the outline/reviews of your book "this time"; i think it would
>> make for great entertainment as a movie. if handled properly, it
>> would be an excellent tool to educate the masses with regards to the
>> shakespearian mythology.
>>
>> have you any offerings in the wings? the assorted r3 societies
>> should get behind you and push for it to be made. there is a
>> audience in waiting, and with the right cast, director a possible
>> block buster, like "knight's tale".
>>
>> i think keanu reeves would do richard total justice in a portrayal.
>> plus he has the backing and funding to "make" the movie on more than
>> a "b" list budget.
>>
>> here's his contact info.
>> http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Keanu_Reeves/Contact.asp
>>
>> roslyn
>> --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Joan <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Joan <r3_Joansz@...>
>> Subject: Re: Curiosity about this period
>> To:
>> Received: Monday, December 7, 2009, 5:42 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> IMO, this book is well worth reading. I reviewed it on my blog
>> <http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/2009/ 09/review- of-richard- iii-and-
>> murder- in.\
>> html> and on Amazon.com (US site). It really makes one think.
>>
>> Joan
>> ---
>> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
>> website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
>> blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/
>>
>> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
>> <bisudagan@. ..> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank You, I'll look there also.
>> >
>> > Stefano
>> >
>> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sally Keil" skeil@
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Stefano,
>> > > This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August
>> 2009
>> issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III
>> Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and
>> the
>> Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the
>> death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby
>> who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her
>> family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret
>> with his lord, William Hastings.... who kept the secret even after
>> Edward
>> 4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
>> marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that
>> Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless
>> willing to
>> have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: Abikapi2
>> > > To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
>> > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
>> > > Subject: Curiosity about this period
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hi, Marie
>> > >
>> > > Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have
>> any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by
>> Glouchester/ Richard.
>> > >
>> > > Stefano
>> > >
>> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
>> <bisudagan@> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian
>> we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Stefano
>> > > >
>> > > > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed
>> say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly.
>> I'm
>> afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at
>> times.
>> > > >
>> > > > Marie
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
>> mariewalsh2003
>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > You mean 'exhausting' .
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
>> <bisudagan@> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Stefano
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
>> mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
>> "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June
>> 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the
>> location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two
>> miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of
>> Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot,
>> mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry
>> was on
>> foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
>> > > > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's
>> defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
>> > > > > > > > > Has someone red it?
>> > > > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Thank you
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Stefano
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me
>> if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that
>> there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly
>> where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
>> > > > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the
>> Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors
>> to be
>> unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it
>> up;
>> > > > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington,
>> on the basis that:-
>> > > > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield
>> burials in Dadlington church
>> > > > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle
>> 'Dadlington Field'
>> > > > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in
>> Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John
>> Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council
>> that he had been.
>> > > > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone,
>> Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid
>> compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops
>> "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an
>> old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent
>> sentence of which is, in translation: -
>> > > > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of
>> us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the
>> archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and
>> Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their
>> finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to
>> the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation
>> grant.
>> > > > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather
>> fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig
>> did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between
>> the
>> three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where
>> the
>> shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km
>> mentioned?),
>> in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle
>> site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Marie
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Somehow the young actor in the current crop of UPS TV commercials
> reminds me of the portraits of Richard. The young man in these ads-
> he stands in front of a white board and draws various UPS symbols
> which then become animated- has longish dark hair, a smaller but
> muscular build, straight nose, and somewhat sharp features. In repose
> his face is average, but it lights up when he smiles. That brings to
> mind some of the comments on Richard's appearance, Has anyone else
> noticed this ad?


I have, I enjoy it, and now that you mention it, he would make a very good Richard III. Especially with a red rinse on his hair.

His name ia Andy Azula. He's a creative director at the ad agency that created the commercial.

http://atlanta.daybooknetwork.com/story/2009/04/03/18854andy-azula-event.shtml

I bet he'd be interested in knowing that he resembles Richard III.

Katy

I got the name of Stephen Moyer's role in True Blood wrong--should have
written Bill Compton. Anyway, here's a short bio of him on IMBD
<http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0610459/bio> . At 5'10" he's a little
taller than I imagine Richard was (I pictured him around 5'8"), but
that's a lot closer than the over 6' heights of other named actors.
Besides, he's an actor with an impressive vita.

--- In , "oregonkaty"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Florence Dove mdove9@
wrote:
> >
> > Somehow the young actor in the current crop of UPS TV commercials
> > reminds me of the portraits of Richard. The young man in these ads-
> > he stands in front of a white board and draws various UPS symbols
> > which then become animated- has longish dark hair, a smaller but
> > muscular build, straight nose, and somewhat sharp features. In
repose
> > his face is average, but it lights up when he smiles. That brings to
> > mind some of the comments on Richard's appearance, Has anyone else
> > noticed this ad?
>
>
> I have, I enjoy it, and now that you mention it, he would make a very
good Richard III. Especially with a red rinse on his hair.
>
> His name ia Andy Azula. He's a creative director at the ad agency
that created the commercial.
>
>
http://atlanta.daybooknetwork.com/story/2009/04/03/18854andy-azula-event\
.shtml
>
> I bet he'd be interested in knowing that he resembles Richard III.
>
> Katy
>

Perhaps he's not an actor, but he does seems like he would be a great
choice!

Those commercials have fascinated me, because they seem "too good to be
true" - and some of them are animated - but they sure look like he's
actually drawing on a whiteboard!

Richard III, huh? Now I'll never be able to watch those commercials without
thinking of him in that role!

TTFN :-)

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Florence Dove
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Curiosity about this period

Somehow the young actor in the current crop of UPS TV commercials
reminds me of the portraits of Richard. The young man in these ads-
he stands in front of a white board and draws various UPS symbols
which then become animated- has longish dark hair, a smaller but
muscular build, straight nose, and somewhat sharp features. In repose
his face is average, but it lights up when he smiles. That brings to
mind some of the comments on Richard's appearance, Has anyone else
noticed this ad?

--- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps he's not an actor, but he [Andy Azula, of the UPS "whiteboard" commercials] does seems like he would be a great
> choice!

Well, he's an actor now -- an article quoted him as saying that once he was in front of the camera, he had to join AFTRA and SAG (the US acting unions)

Katy

You guys are cracking me up!

Happy December,
Mishka