Re: Be afraid ..................
Re: Be afraid ..................
2011-01-27 16:47:41
I'm only just now watching the first batch of The Tudors as it is being run on BBC America.
Last night we got the episode concerning the Field of the Cloth of Gold. I noticed that when Henry signed the treaty, he wrote simply "Henry." Shouldn't that have been "Henricus Rex?"
Katy
Last night we got the episode concerning the Field of the Cloth of Gold. I noticed that when Henry signed the treaty, he wrote simply "Henry." Shouldn't that have been "Henricus Rex?"
Katy
Re: Be afraid ..................
2011-01-27 20:35:50
I've gotten hold of pretty much all the cinematic portrayals of Henry
VIII, various wives, his sister Mary, etc., going back to Charles
Laughton, and I'm planning a Hankorama (Hankathon?) sometime soon. I'm
interested in the differences in cinematic portrayal of Henry and his
age over the decades. A number of years ago, I stated on another forum
that I believe a biography/history speaks more to the person producing
the biography/history, and the era in which their works are produced,
than it does to the subject of the biography/history or the era in which
the subject actually lived.
For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
(Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on James
I he states:
"[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they welcomed a
male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
Mary? Dunno.
Sidebar: ironically, the 'female traits' attributed to Elizabeth are
more suited to James.
And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
century? This question brings me to a corollary to the point I made
above. It's relatively easy to create a chronology and to articulate
logical arguments pertaining to people and events in other times, but
it's pretty much impossible to reasonably understand or to articulate
the zeitgeists of other times.
After I'm done with Hank, I have to decide who's the better
Cromwell---Richard Harris or Tim Roth? Help me out here, Paul.
And on I tread...
VIII, various wives, his sister Mary, etc., going back to Charles
Laughton, and I'm planning a Hankorama (Hankathon?) sometime soon. I'm
interested in the differences in cinematic portrayal of Henry and his
age over the decades. A number of years ago, I stated on another forum
that I believe a biography/history speaks more to the person producing
the biography/history, and the era in which their works are produced,
than it does to the subject of the biography/history or the era in which
the subject actually lived.
For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
(Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on James
I he states:
"[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they welcomed a
male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
Mary? Dunno.
Sidebar: ironically, the 'female traits' attributed to Elizabeth are
more suited to James.
And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
century? This question brings me to a corollary to the point I made
above. It's relatively easy to create a chronology and to articulate
logical arguments pertaining to people and events in other times, but
it's pretty much impossible to reasonably understand or to articulate
the zeitgeists of other times.
After I'm done with Hank, I have to decide who's the better
Cromwell---Richard Harris or Tim Roth? Help me out here, Paul.
And on I tread...
Re: Be afraid ..................
2011-01-27 21:41:03
--- In , Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
> event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
> example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
> (Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on James
> I he states:
>
> "[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
> affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
> petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they welcomed a
> male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
>
> Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
> 1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
> speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
> Mary? Dunno.
>
> And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
> speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
> century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
> century?
Good point. From the viewpoint of the 20th and 21st centuries, people are inclined to admire Elizabeth I as a Liberated Woman who chose not to marry because she did not wish to share the throne with a husband who might interfere with her reign or even try to subjugate her. But I wonder what her subjects actually thought about the Virgin Queen, who kept the line of succession, and therefore, basically, society in general up in the air for decades. A monarch's duty is to provide heirs so the dynasty could continue. Her capriciousness, if that is what it was, resulted in the throne of England going to a foreigner, a citizen of a country that England had been at odds, if not at war, with for centuries -- James V of Scotland.
Much the same can be said of Eleanor of Aquitaine, whom many in this century look upon as another Liberated Woman. (Especially after the way she was portrayed by Katherine Hepburn in The Lion in Winter.) She played her children against each other, to the detriment of the country, and she consistently worked to undermine her husband, Henry II. How did her contemporaries see her?
Katy
>
> For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
> event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
> example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
> (Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on James
> I he states:
>
> "[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
> affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
> petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they welcomed a
> male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
>
> Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
> 1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
> speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
> Mary? Dunno.
>
> And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
> speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
> century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
> century?
Good point. From the viewpoint of the 20th and 21st centuries, people are inclined to admire Elizabeth I as a Liberated Woman who chose not to marry because she did not wish to share the throne with a husband who might interfere with her reign or even try to subjugate her. But I wonder what her subjects actually thought about the Virgin Queen, who kept the line of succession, and therefore, basically, society in general up in the air for decades. A monarch's duty is to provide heirs so the dynasty could continue. Her capriciousness, if that is what it was, resulted in the throne of England going to a foreigner, a citizen of a country that England had been at odds, if not at war, with for centuries -- James V of Scotland.
Much the same can be said of Eleanor of Aquitaine, whom many in this century look upon as another Liberated Woman. (Especially after the way she was portrayed by Katherine Hepburn in The Lion in Winter.) She played her children against each other, to the detriment of the country, and she consistently worked to undermine her husband, Henry II. How did her contemporaries see her?
Katy
Re: Be afraid ..................
2011-01-27 22:33:56
Not at all on topic are we with all this Tudor tosh, and Cromwell is way off BUT Tim Roth played Cromwell thinking he had been hired to play Shakespeare's Richard! Dreadful!
Harris was rather good though Guinness walked away with the film.
Anecdote. First time he saw Guinness on film as Charles the producer, yes the producer, asked why they'd hired an actor with a stutter! True!
Paul
Now can we get back to Richard and his life and times?
On 27 Jan 2011, at 20:33, Bill Barber wrote:
> I've gotten hold of pretty much all the cinematic portrayals of Henry
> VIII, various wives, his sister Mary, etc., going back to Charles
> Laughton, and I'm planning a Hankorama (Hankathon?) sometime soon. I'm
> interested in the differences in cinematic portrayal of Henry and his
> age over the decades. A number of years ago, I stated on another forum
> that I believe a biography/history speaks more to the person producing
> the biography/history, and the era in which their works are produced,
> than it does to the subject of the biography/history or the era in which
> the subject actually lived.
>
> For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
> event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
> example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
> (Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on James
> I he states:
>
> "[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
> affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
> petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they welcomed a
> male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
>
> Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
> 1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
> speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
> Mary? Dunno.
>
> Sidebar: ironically, the 'female traits' attributed to Elizabeth are
> more suited to James.
>
> And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
> speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
> century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
> century? This question brings me to a corollary to the point I made
> above. It's relatively easy to create a chronology and to articulate
> logical arguments pertaining to people and events in other times, but
> it's pretty much impossible to reasonably understand or to articulate
> the zeitgeists of other times.
>
> After I'm done with Hank, I have to decide who's the better
> Cromwell---Richard Harris or Tim Roth? Help me out here, Paul.
>
> And on I tread...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Harris was rather good though Guinness walked away with the film.
Anecdote. First time he saw Guinness on film as Charles the producer, yes the producer, asked why they'd hired an actor with a stutter! True!
Paul
Now can we get back to Richard and his life and times?
On 27 Jan 2011, at 20:33, Bill Barber wrote:
> I've gotten hold of pretty much all the cinematic portrayals of Henry
> VIII, various wives, his sister Mary, etc., going back to Charles
> Laughton, and I'm planning a Hankorama (Hankathon?) sometime soon. I'm
> interested in the differences in cinematic portrayal of Henry and his
> age over the decades. A number of years ago, I stated on another forum
> that I believe a biography/history speaks more to the person producing
> the biography/history, and the era in which their works are produced,
> than it does to the subject of the biography/history or the era in which
> the subject actually lived.
>
> For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
> event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
> example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
> (Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on James
> I he states:
>
> "[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
> affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
> petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they welcomed a
> male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
>
> Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
> 1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
> speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
> Mary? Dunno.
>
> Sidebar: ironically, the 'female traits' attributed to Elizabeth are
> more suited to James.
>
> And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
> speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
> century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
> century? This question brings me to a corollary to the point I made
> above. It's relatively easy to create a chronology and to articulate
> logical arguments pertaining to people and events in other times, but
> it's pretty much impossible to reasonably understand or to articulate
> the zeitgeists of other times.
>
> After I'm done with Hank, I have to decide who's the better
> Cromwell---Richard Harris or Tim Roth? Help me out here, Paul.
>
> And on I tread...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Be afraid ..................
2011-01-27 22:55:25
fyi, feb 1st, tuesday at 2.15am, TCM aka the turner classic movie channel, in canada is broadcasting olivier's richard iii. it is to be followed by laughton's henry viii, and then anne of a 1000 days. i don't know if it broadcasts the same programming at the same time in the usa.
also, VPRNT sunday, jan. 30th, at 6pm is airing ian mckellen and annette benning's version of richard iii.
this programming to me is via bell satellite service. the times are pacific time zone.
roslyn
--- On Thu, 1/27/11, Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
From: Bill Barber <bbarber@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Received: Thursday, January 27, 2011, 3:33 PM
I've gotten hold of pretty much all the cinematic portrayals of Henry
VIII, various wives, his sister Mary, etc., going back to Charles
Laughton, and I'm planning a Hankorama (Hankathon?) sometime soon. I'm
interested in the differences in cinematic portrayal of Henry and his
age over the decades. A number of years ago, I stated on another forum
that I believe a biography/history speaks more to the person producing
the biography/history, and the era in which their works are produced,
than it does to the subject of the biography/history or the era in which
the subject actually lived.
For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
(Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on James
I he states:
"[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they welcomed a
male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
Mary? Dunno.
Sidebar: ironically, the 'female traits' attributed to Elizabeth are
more suited to James.
And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
century? This question brings me to a corollary to the point I made
above. It's relatively easy to create a chronology and to articulate
logical arguments pertaining to people and events in other times, but
it's pretty much impossible to reasonably understand or to articulate
the zeitgeists of other times.
After I'm done with Hank, I have to decide who's the better
Cromwell---Richard Harris or Tim Roth? Help me out here, Paul.
And on I tread...
also, VPRNT sunday, jan. 30th, at 6pm is airing ian mckellen and annette benning's version of richard iii.
this programming to me is via bell satellite service. the times are pacific time zone.
roslyn
--- On Thu, 1/27/11, Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
From: Bill Barber <bbarber@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Received: Thursday, January 27, 2011, 3:33 PM
I've gotten hold of pretty much all the cinematic portrayals of Henry
VIII, various wives, his sister Mary, etc., going back to Charles
Laughton, and I'm planning a Hankorama (Hankathon?) sometime soon. I'm
interested in the differences in cinematic portrayal of Henry and his
age over the decades. A number of years ago, I stated on another forum
that I believe a biography/history speaks more to the person producing
the biography/history, and the era in which their works are produced,
than it does to the subject of the biography/history or the era in which
the subject actually lived.
For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
(Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on James
I he states:
"[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they welcomed a
male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
Mary? Dunno.
Sidebar: ironically, the 'female traits' attributed to Elizabeth are
more suited to James.
And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
century? This question brings me to a corollary to the point I made
above. It's relatively easy to create a chronology and to articulate
logical arguments pertaining to people and events in other times, but
it's pretty much impossible to reasonably understand or to articulate
the zeitgeists of other times.
After I'm done with Hank, I have to decide who's the better
Cromwell---Richard Harris or Tim Roth? Help me out here, Paul.
And on I tread...
Re: Be afraid ..................
2011-01-28 00:28:34
Paul's right of course. I should have segued to Richard from Cromwell.
I would make the same points about the events of Richard's time.
Twenty-odd years ago, I made some statement to someone about how dumb
the Duke of York was to blunder to his death at Wakefield. In the same
way, I often questioned the wisdom of Richard's final charge. At the
time, I was a museum curator, and was engaged in 'interpreting' the
artifacts in the museum collection. Interpretation meant that I was
imposing my storyline on the lives of people who lived in a much earlier
age than mine. I was suddenly struck by my arrogance in assuming I had
the right to do this. At the same time, I revisited my thoughts on the
Duke of York and Richard and concluded that I had no right to interpret
them, since I was not a party to their zeitgeist(s). Although I could
develop both timeline and cause-and-effects models for the events that
occurred, it would always be impossible to steep in the wholism of their
life experiences. When all is said, I don't know why they did what they
did, but it likely involved both head and heart.
On 27/01/2011 5:33 PM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Not at all on topic are we with all this Tudor tosh, and Cromwell is
> way off BUT Tim Roth played Cromwell thinking he had been hired to
> play Shakespeare's Richard! Dreadful!
> Harris was rather good though Guinness walked away with the film.
> Anecdote. First time he saw Guinness on film as Charles the producer,
> yes the producer, asked why they'd hired an actor with a stutter! True!
> Paul
> Now can we get back to Richard and his life and times?
>
> On 27 Jan 2011, at 20:33, Bill Barber wrote:
>
> > I've gotten hold of pretty much all the cinematic portrayals of Henry
> > VIII, various wives, his sister Mary, etc., going back to Charles
> > Laughton, and I'm planning a Hankorama (Hankathon?) sometime soon. I'm
> > interested in the differences in cinematic portrayal of Henry and his
> > age over the decades. A number of years ago, I stated on another forum
> > that I believe a biography/history speaks more to the person producing
> > the biography/history, and the era in which their works are produced,
> > than it does to the subject of the biography/history or the era in
> which
> > the subject actually lived.
> >
> > For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
> > event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
> > example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
> > (Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on
> James
> > I he states:
> >
> > "[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
> > affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
> > petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they
> welcomed a
> > male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
> >
> > Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
> > 1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
> > speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
> > Mary? Dunno.
> >
> > Sidebar: ironically, the 'female traits' attributed to Elizabeth are
> > more suited to James.
> >
> > And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
> > speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
> > century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
> > century? This question brings me to a corollary to the point I made
> > above. It's relatively easy to create a chronology and to articulate
> > logical arguments pertaining to people and events in other times, but
> > it's pretty much impossible to reasonably understand or to articulate
> > the zeitgeists of other times.
> >
> > After I'm done with Hank, I have to decide who's the better
> > Cromwell---Richard Harris or Tim Roth? Help me out here, Paul.
> >
> > And on I tread...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3406 - Release Date: 01/27/11
>
I would make the same points about the events of Richard's time.
Twenty-odd years ago, I made some statement to someone about how dumb
the Duke of York was to blunder to his death at Wakefield. In the same
way, I often questioned the wisdom of Richard's final charge. At the
time, I was a museum curator, and was engaged in 'interpreting' the
artifacts in the museum collection. Interpretation meant that I was
imposing my storyline on the lives of people who lived in a much earlier
age than mine. I was suddenly struck by my arrogance in assuming I had
the right to do this. At the same time, I revisited my thoughts on the
Duke of York and Richard and concluded that I had no right to interpret
them, since I was not a party to their zeitgeist(s). Although I could
develop both timeline and cause-and-effects models for the events that
occurred, it would always be impossible to steep in the wholism of their
life experiences. When all is said, I don't know why they did what they
did, but it likely involved both head and heart.
On 27/01/2011 5:33 PM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Not at all on topic are we with all this Tudor tosh, and Cromwell is
> way off BUT Tim Roth played Cromwell thinking he had been hired to
> play Shakespeare's Richard! Dreadful!
> Harris was rather good though Guinness walked away with the film.
> Anecdote. First time he saw Guinness on film as Charles the producer,
> yes the producer, asked why they'd hired an actor with a stutter! True!
> Paul
> Now can we get back to Richard and his life and times?
>
> On 27 Jan 2011, at 20:33, Bill Barber wrote:
>
> > I've gotten hold of pretty much all the cinematic portrayals of Henry
> > VIII, various wives, his sister Mary, etc., going back to Charles
> > Laughton, and I'm planning a Hankorama (Hankathon?) sometime soon. I'm
> > interested in the differences in cinematic portrayal of Henry and his
> > age over the decades. A number of years ago, I stated on another forum
> > that I believe a biography/history speaks more to the person producing
> > the biography/history, and the era in which their works are produced,
> > than it does to the subject of the biography/history or the era in
> which
> > the subject actually lived.
> >
> > For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
> > event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
> > example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
> > (Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on
> James
> > I he states:
> >
> > "[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
> > affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
> > petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they
> welcomed a
> > male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."
> >
> > Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
> > 1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
> > speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
> > Mary? Dunno.
> >
> > Sidebar: ironically, the 'female traits' attributed to Elizabeth are
> > more suited to James.
> >
> > And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
> > speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
> > century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
> > century? This question brings me to a corollary to the point I made
> > above. It's relatively easy to create a chronology and to articulate
> > logical arguments pertaining to people and events in other times, but
> > it's pretty much impossible to reasonably understand or to articulate
> > the zeitgeists of other times.
> >
> > After I'm done with Hank, I have to decide who's the better
> > Cromwell---Richard Harris or Tim Roth? Help me out here, Paul.
> >
> > And on I tread...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3406 - Release Date: 01/27/11
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.