Hi from new member

Hello!
 
I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you.  I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely.  I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself.  :)
 
Margie

Welcome, Margie!

Love,
Judy Thomson


________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2011 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Hi from new member


 
Hello!
 
I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you.  I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely.  I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself.  :)
 
Margie

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>  
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you.  I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely.  I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself.  :)
>  
> Margie


Margie and I met in another online group devoted to another intriguing person, and discovered we had Richard III in common.

I'm very happy you joined this group, Margie.

Katy (my name is actually Kay but for reasons too boring to explain, I am usually Katy online...maybe I should change back to Kay)

Ah, Kay/Katy, that 'splains a lot : )

I thought I was crazy.... Well, I am a little bit. But not bonkers. Not yet, anyway.

Glad Margie joined us. I'm intrigued by the notion of another Interesting Person. I have a few of those, myself, and so do my pals. Everyone from Anne of Bohemia, Napoleon, and Frida Kahlo to Johnny Depp and the 17th C. Water Poet, John Taylor.

Judy


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2011 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member


 


--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>  
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you.  I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely.  I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself.  :)
>  
> Margie

Margie and I met in another online group devoted to another intriguing person, and discovered we had Richard III in common.

I'm very happy you joined this group, Margie.

Katy (my name is actually Kay but for reasons too boring to explain, I am usually Katy online...maybe I should change back to Kay)

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, Kay/Katy, that 'splains a lot : )
>
> I thought I was crazy.... Well, I am a little bit. But not bonkers. Not yet, anyway.


Quite a while back, I joined a group that already had an active member named Kay Anderson. As with Actors Equity, I figured one person per name was enough and, since I didn't share some of her opinions and points of view, I renamed myself. My brother used to call me Katy, anyway. Since thee is some crossovers between groups, I used Katy in others as I joined them.

I haven't heard of "the" Kay Anderson in years, so I'm reclaiming my name.

Kay

Dear Ka[t]y,

In high school, I knew a brother and sister, legally named "K" and "J" because their parents believed everyone should be free to select a name at majority. Nice in theory, but they were called "Kay" and "Jay," by default, for their first 20 years, and as far as I know, they ended up as Kay and Jay, to avoid  hassle.

Allegedly, Oprah Winfrey got her name via typo; she was baptized "Orpah," but this was incorrectly recorded. She turned this around (literally) to her advantage when she named her Chicago studio/production company Harpo : )

I wonder how many people and places of our Ricardian era derived names from mistakes or misunderstandings (?)

 [ "Ricardian" also refers to economist/philosopher David Ricardo; "Richardist" or "Richardian" might have been more precise for the King. Or else the possessive of Ricardus...?]

Judy  


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2011 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member


 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, Kay/Katy, that 'splains a lot : )
>
> I thought I was crazy.... Well, I am a little bit. But not bonkers. Not yet, anyway.

Quite a while back, I joined a group that already had an active member named Kay Anderson. As with Actors Equity, I figured one person per name was enough and, since I didn't share some of her opinions and points of view, I renamed myself. My brother used to call me Katy, anyway. Since thee is some crossovers between groups, I used Katy in others as I joined them.

I haven't heard of "the" Kay Anderson in years, so I'm reclaiming my name.

Kay

Hi Judy and KAY  ----
 
Thanks for the very warm welcome.
 
Speaking of names, the "names"  is one of my biggest issues in my Ricardian and English history studies. Seriously, often I know who I am actually talking about but I get my Henry(s), Edward(s) and their various numbers confused.  And do not get me started on all the many Dukes.... Luckily, I have a fellow Ricardian who patiently corrects me when I have my names mixed up.
 
Please feel free to do so!
 
As for the intriguing people, there are so many.  Reminds me of the Alex Trebek quote:  "I'm curious about everything, even things I'm not interested in."
 
Margie
 
 

--- On Sat, 5/7/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member
To: "" <>
Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 2:58 PM


 



Ah, Kay/Katy, that 'splains a lot : )

I thought I was crazy.... Well, I am a little bit. But not bonkers. Not yet, anyway.

Glad Margie joined us. I'm intrigued by the notion of another Interesting Person. I have a few of those, myself, and so do my pals. Everyone from Anne of Bohemia, Napoleon, and Frida Kahlo to Johnny Depp and the 17th C. Water Poet, John Taylor.

Judy

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2011 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member

 

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>  
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you.  I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely.  I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself.  :)
>  
> Margie

Margie and I met in another online group devoted to another intriguing person, and discovered we had Richard III in common.

I'm very happy you joined this group, Margie.

Katy (my name is actually Kay but for reasons too boring to explain, I am usually Katy online...maybe I should change back to Kay)

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:

> Speaking of names, the "names"  is one of my biggest issues in my Ricardian and English history studies. Seriously, often I know who I am actually talking about but I get my Henry(s), Edward(s) and their various numbers confused. 


It's the Same Name Syndrome. Trips us all up at one time or another. It even tripped up Barbara Tuchman -- in the introduction to A Distant Mirror, she tells how she wasted a year and a half of research following the wrong Enguerrand de Coucy. Two men by that name, living at the same time and moving in the same circles -- someone recently quoted Mark Twain as saying "The difference between fact and fiction is that fiction has to be believable."

Kay

Johnny Depp Judy?
Now I wonder why? :-)
Paul

On 7 May 2011, at 20:58, Judy Thomson wrote:

> Ah, Kay/Katy, that 'splains a lot : )
>
> I thought I was crazy.... Well, I am a little bit. But not bonkers. Not yet, anyway.
>
> Glad Margie joined us. I'm intrigued by the notion of another Interesting Person. I have a few of those, myself, and so do my pals. Everyone from Anne of Bohemia, Napoleon, and Frida Kahlo to Johnny Depp and the 17th C. Water Poet, John Taylor.
>
> Judy
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2011 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>>
>> Margie
>
> Margie and I met in another online group devoted to another intriguing person, and discovered we had Richard III in common.
>
> I'm very happy you joined this group, Margie.
>
> Katy (my name is actually Kay but for reasons too boring to explain, I am usually Katy online...maybe I should change back to Kay)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

A big welcome from me too. We have a lot of regulars on the forum, but then a new member crops up and starts a really interesting debate, as for example Rob who has opened my eyes to a whole set of new information about mediaeval coinage. Wonderful stuff! I have been a bit silent lately as I'm working on a new article - I'll tell you more when I've cracked the initial research. Meanwhile, do please share your thoughts and interests.
All best
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:57 PM
Subject: Hi from new member



Hello!

I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)

Margie

Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!


--- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:


From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
Subject: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM


 



Hello!
 
I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you.  I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely.  I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself.  :)
 
Margie

You all have so nice and welcoming.  :)
 
One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
 
Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king? 
 
In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the  people were more weary than anything else?

--- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:


From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Subject: Re: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM


 



Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!

--- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:

From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
Subject: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM

 

Hello!
 
I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you.  I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely.  I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself.  :)
 
Margie

Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.

----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?



You all have so nice and welcoming. :)

One question I would like to get your thoughts about--

Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?

In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?

--- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Subject: Re: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM



Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!

--- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:

From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
Subject: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM



Hello!

I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)

Margie

Henry Tudor claimed to be a son of Henry VI? Do you have a source for that?

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MD Deck
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>
> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>
> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>
> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>
> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>
>
>
> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>
> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
> Subject: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Michael K. Jones at the Norwich Study Day a few years ago - Henry said this to the French court before setting sail. His birth year makes him two years younger than Edward "of Lancaster" (note the punctuation;).

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?



Henry Tudor claimed to be a son of Henry VI? Do you have a source for that?

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MD Deck
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>
> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>
> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>
> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>
> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>
>
>
> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>
> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
> Subject: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Susan - If you check with "Richard III: The Maligned King", which I know is in the USA branch library, you will find the source on page 309 as note 27 to chapter 12. It was quoted by Mike Jones in "Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle", which perhaps is also in the library. The phrase "fils du feu roy Henry d'Angelterre" (son of the late king Henry of England) appears as a description of Henry Tudor in a letter from Charles VIII to the town of Toulon. The original text appears in Alfred Spont, 'La marine francaise sous le regne de Charles VIII' in "Revue des questions historiques", new series, II (1894).
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?



Henry Tudor claimed to be a son of Henry VI? Do you have a source for that?

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MD Deck
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>
> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>
> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>
> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>
> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>
>
>
> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>
> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
> Subject: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Stephen - Re "Henry said this to the French court" .... I suspect the reverse was the case, i.e. the French court probably required Henry to adopt a pose in order to justify the large amounts of money that were being thrown at him, and he therefore chose this one. Obviously it was useful to support a pretender who would be a thorn in the side of the English sovereign, but the outfitting of an invasion force was quite another thing. Henry Tudor as a bedraggled sprig of the house of Lancaster was a poor cause to support, but he carried more credibility as the son of the last Lancastrian king. As I've often said before, Henry was willing to play any part anyone suggested as long as it got him closer to his objective.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?



Michael K. Jones at the Norwich Study Day a few years ago - Henry said this to the French court before setting sail. His birth year makes him two years younger than Edward "of Lancaster" (note the punctuation;).

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

Henry Tudor claimed to be a son of Henry VI? Do you have a source for that?

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MD Deck
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>
> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>
> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>
> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>
> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>
>
>
> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>
> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
> Subject: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, I really DO know how to spell Angleterre!

----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?



Hi Susan - If you check with "Richard III: The Maligned King", which I know is in the USA branch library, you will find the source on page 309 as note 27 to chapter 12. It was quoted by Mike Jones in "Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle", which perhaps is also in the library. The phrase "fils du feu roy Henry d'Angelterre" (son of the late king Henry of England) appears as a description of Henry Tudor in a letter from Charles VIII to the town of Toulon. The original text appears in Alfred Spont, 'La marine francaise sous le regne de Charles VIII' in "Revue des questions historiques", new series, II (1894).
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

Henry Tudor claimed to be a son of Henry VI? Do you have a source for that?

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MD Deck
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>
> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>
> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>
> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>
> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>
>
>
> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>
> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
> Subject: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks! I finally found the Spont book online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9L9WAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Alfred+Spont,+%27La+marine+francaise&hl=en&ei=py_ITdG4LYv3gAfcjK3LBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Susan - If you check with "Richard III: The Maligned King", which I know is in the USA branch library, you will find the source on page 309 as note 27 to chapter 12. It was quoted by Mike Jones in "Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle", which perhaps is also in the library. The phrase "fils du feu roy Henry d'Angelterre" (son of the late king Henry of England) appears as a description of Henry Tudor in a letter from Charles VIII to the town of Toulon. The original text appears in Alfred Spont, 'La marine francaise sous le regne de Charles VIII' in "Revue des questions historiques", new series, II (1894).
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Susan
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> Henry Tudor claimed to be a son of Henry VI? Do you have a source for that?
>
> Susan Higginbotham
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: MD Deck
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> >
> >
> >
> > You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
> >
> > One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
> >
> > Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
> >
> > In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
> >
> > --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> > To:
> > Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
> >
> > --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@> wrote:
> >
> > From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@>
> > Subject: Hi from new member
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
> >
> > Margie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well it is yer actual French! :-)
Paul

On 9 May 2011, at 15:40, Annette Carson wrote:

> Sorry, I really DO know how to spell Angleterre!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> Hi Susan - If you check with "Richard III: The Maligned King", which I know is in the USA branch library, you will find the source on page 309 as note 27 to chapter 12. It was quoted by Mike Jones in "Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle", which perhaps is also in the library. The phrase "fils du feu roy Henry d'Angelterre" (son of the late king Henry of England) appears as a description of Henry Tudor in a letter from Charles VIII to the town of Toulon. The original text appears in Alfred Spont, 'La marine francaise sous le regne de Charles VIII' in "Revue des questions historiques", new series, II (1894).
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Susan
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
> Henry Tudor claimed to be a son of Henry VI? Do you have a source for that?
>
> Susan Higginbotham
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MD Deck
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>>
>>
>> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>>
>> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>>
>> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>>
>> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>>
>> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
>> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
>> To:
>> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>>
>> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>> Subject: Hi from new member
>> To:
>> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>>
>> Margie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?
 


--- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:


From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
To:
Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM


 



Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.

----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

You all have so nice and welcoming. :)

One question I would like to get your thoughts about--

Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?

In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?

--- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Subject: Re: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM

Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!

--- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:

From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
Subject: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM

Hello!

I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)

Margie

You guys are GREAT!
 
One simple open-ended question and a treasure trove of information...
 
so glad I'm here!  :)


--- On Mon, 5/9/11, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:


From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
To:
Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 9:23 AM


 



Hi Susan - If you check with "Richard III: The Maligned King", which I know is in the USA branch library, you will find the source on page 309 as note 27 to chapter 12. It was quoted by Mike Jones in "Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle", which perhaps is also in the library. The phrase "fils du feu roy Henry d'Angelterre" (son of the late king Henry of England) appears as a description of Henry Tudor in a letter from Charles VIII to the town of Toulon. The original text appears in Alfred Spont, 'La marine francaise sous le regne de Charles VIII' in "Revue des questions historiques", new series, II (1894).
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

Henry Tudor claimed to be a son of Henry VI? Do you have a source for that?

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MD Deck
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>
> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>
> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>
> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>
> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>
>
>
> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>
> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
> Subject: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

As I once again bemoan the fact that I did not study French when I had the chance...
 
Do you believe the French fully expected the new Tudor king to be weaker in his realm than he actually turned out to be? 
 
Although from what I have read, he pretty much let them be comparatively speaking? 

--- On Mon, 5/9/11, Susan <shigginbotham2@...> wrote:


From: Susan <shigginbotham2@...>
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
To:
Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 1:29 PM


 



Thanks! I finally found the Spont book online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9L9WAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Alfred+Spont,+%27La+marine+francaise&hl=en&ei=py_ITdG4LYv3gAfcjK3LBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Susan - If you check with "Richard III: The Maligned King", which I know is in the USA branch library, you will find the source on page 309 as note 27 to chapter 12. It was quoted by Mike Jones in "Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle", which perhaps is also in the library. The phrase "fils du feu roy Henry d'Angelterre" (son of the late king Henry of England) appears as a description of Henry Tudor in a letter from Charles VIII to the town of Toulon. The original text appears in Alfred Spont, 'La marine francaise sous le regne de Charles VIII' in "Revue des questions historiques", new series, II (1894).
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Susan
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> Henry Tudor claimed to be a son of Henry VI? Do you have a source for that?
>
> Susan Higginbotham
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: MD Deck
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> >
> >
> >
> > You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
> >
> > One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
> >
> > Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
> >
> > In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
> >
> > --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> > To:
> > Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
> >
> > --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@> wrote:
> >
> > From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@>
> > Subject: Hi from new member
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
> >
> > Margie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and my meeting with her.

----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?



Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?


--- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
To:
Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM



Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.

----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

You all have so nice and welcoming. :)

One question I would like to get your thoughts about--

Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?

In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?

--- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Subject: Re: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM

Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!

--- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:

From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
Subject: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM

Hello!

I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)

Margie

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?
>  
>

>
> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.


My money is on Perkin Warbeck.

I agree. The fact that Margaret of Burgundy supported him is telling.


R

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:10 PM, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

>
>
> My money is on Perkin Warbeck.
>

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> You all have so nice and welcoming.  :)
>  
> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>  
> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king? 
>  
> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the  people were more weary than anything else?
>


He had an army, Richard III was dead, and who else was there? Richard's son had died, Edward IV's boys had vanished, Clarence's son was only a child and was soon in the custody of Tudor's mother. Richard had appointed Jack de la Pole as his heir, and De la Pole survived Bosworth, but there wasn't any rallying round him as the York heir, I don't believe. I wonder why Tudor didn't see to it that he disappeared, too.

Come to think of it, that's a question I'd like to see answered: Why didn't Tudor at least attaint De la Pole? Instead, he gave him some appointments.

But I don't think Tudor was accepted easily by everyone. The city of York shut its gates against him and sent word to London asking if they had to accept him as their king. And the year after he took the throne, Tudor was almost kidnapped, or was kidnapped but quickly freed, at York, if I recall correctly.

The crown didn't rest easily on the head of Henry VII. He spent much of his reign living in the Tower of London instead of more comfortable digs because it was such a secure fortress. He went on few progresses through the country. The famous Beefeaters were the personal guard created by him for his protection -- no previous king of England had had to have a private army to protect him from his own subjects.

Kay

I agree with Stephen - based on Ann Wroe's researches AND, self-evidently, the fact that I simply can't believe murders took place at the Tower of London about which Henry Tudor was unable to find a shred of evidence two years later. It seems to have been one of the very few things Henry felt unable to lie about, at least until many years had passed.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?



I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and my meeting with her.

----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?


--- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
To:
Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM

Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.

----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

You all have so nice and welcoming. :)

One question I would like to get your thoughts about--

Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?

In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?

--- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Subject: Re: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM

Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!

--- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:

From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
Subject: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM

Hello!

I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)

Margie

Well, the remains found in 1674 were of the right ages for the princes, according to dental evidence they were related, they were buried in the right place (the Tower) and it was reported that velvet was found on one of the bones: a high status cloth suitable for princes, so it's at least possible that the princes were killed in 1483 and that Henry VII simply didn't know where they'd been buried. Buckingham, Henry's apparent two-faced pal, is my favourite for their disposal. However, I wouldn't rule out Richard III. The killers weren't likely to confess if they were still alive in 1485.

Obviously, carbon dating or a DNA test on the remains would be a good idea, but I understand that the Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being dug up and the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks, like Charles II in 1674, the evidence is sufficient without a further autopsy.


--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with Stephen - based on Ann Wroe's researches AND, self-evidently, the fact that I simply can't believe murders took place at the Tower of London about which Henry Tudor was unable to find a shred of evidence two years later. It seems to have been one of the very few things Henry felt unable to lie about, at least until many years had passed.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Lark
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
>
>
> I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and my meeting with her.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MD Deck
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
> Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?
>
>
> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> To:
> Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM
>
> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MD Deck
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>
> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>
> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>
> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>
> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>
> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>
> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>
> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
> Subject: Hi from new member
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>
> Hello!
>
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh please! Where have you been the past few years? Right ages? Dental evidence? Buried in the right place? Velvet on one of the bones? Again I say, oh please! All discredited time and time again, unless you take More as being an eye witness that is! Carbon dating could, and probably would, show the bones in the Abbey to be from an earlier age, maybe even Roman. There is no evidence, sufficient or otherwise, to say those bones belong to anybody royal, let alone to the sons of Edward the Fourth.
Paul
over to you Annette, amongst others no doubt....


On 10 May 2011, at 14:26, vermeertwo wrote:

> Well, the remains found in 1674 were of the right ages for the princes, according to dental evidence they were related, they were buried in the right place (the Tower) and it was reported that velvet was found on one of the bones: a high status cloth suitable for princes, so it's at least possible that the princes were killed in 1483 and that Henry VII simply didn't know where they'd been buried. Buckingham, Henry's apparent two-faced pal, is my favourite for their disposal. However, I wouldn't rule out Richard III. The killers weren't likely to confess if they were still alive in 1485.
>
> Obviously, carbon dating or a DNA test on the remains would be a good idea, but I understand that the Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being dug up and the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks, like Charles II in 1674, the evidence is sufficient without a further autopsy.
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Stephen - based on Ann Wroe's researches AND, self-evidently, the fact that I simply can't believe murders took place at the Tower of London about which Henry Tudor was unable to find a shred of evidence two years later. It seems to have been one of the very few things Henry felt unable to lie about, at least until many years had passed.
>> Regards, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Stephen Lark
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and my meeting with her.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MD Deck
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>> Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>> To:
>> Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM
>>
>> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MD Deck
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>>
>> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>>
>> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>>
>> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>>
>> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
>> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
>> To:
>> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>>
>> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>>
>> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>> Subject: Hi from new member
>> To:
>> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>>
>> Margie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Exactly right Paul. Adding to the lack of reliable forensic evidence,
is there is no contemporary documentation that suggests that Edward V or
Richard of York had any problems with his jaw or bone disease. If one of
the boys had the kind of deterioration that one jaw had, he would have
been suffering terribly and could not have been seen doing any of the
athletic activities including archery reported in Crowland.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Oh please! Where have you been the past few years? Right ages? Dental
evidence? Buried in the right place? Velvet on one of the bones? Again I
say, oh please! All discredited time and time again, unless you take
More as being an eye witness that is! Carbon dating could, and probably
would, show the bones in the Abbey to be from an earlier age, maybe even
Roman. There is no evidence, sufficient or otherwise, to say those bones
belong to anybody royal, let alone to the sons of Edward the Fourth.
> Paul
> over to you Annette, amongst others no doubt....
>
>
> On 10 May 2011, at 14:26, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> > Well, the remains found in 1674 were of the right ages for the
princes, according to dental evidence they were related, they were
buried in the right place (the Tower) and it was reported that velvet
was found on one of the bones: a high status cloth suitable for princes,
so it's at least possible that the princes were killed in 1483 and that
Henry VII simply didn't know where they'd been buried. Buckingham,
Henry's apparent two-faced pal, is my favourite for their disposal.
However, I wouldn't rule out Richard III. The killers weren't likely to
confess if they were still alive in 1485.
> >
> > Obviously, carbon dating or a DNA test on the remains would be a
good idea, but I understand that the Queen doesn't like the idea of her
ancestors being dug up and the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks, like
Charles II in 1674, the evidence is sufficient without a further
autopsy.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
email@ wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with Stephen - based on Ann Wroe's researches AND,
self-evidently, the fact that I simply can't believe murders took place
at the Tower of London about which Henry Tudor was unable to find a
shred of evidence two years later. It seems to have been one of the very
few things Henry felt unable to lie about, at least until many years had
passed.
> >> Regards, Annette
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Stephen Lark
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:57 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm
welcome...and a ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and
one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one
in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and
my meeting with her.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: MD Deck
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm
welcome...and a ?
> >>
> >> Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?
> >>
> >>
> >> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark stephenmlark@ wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm
welcome...and a ?
> >> To:
> >> Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM
> >>
> >> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and
because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI.
After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one
sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have
been telling the truth.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: MD Deck
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm
welcome...and a ?
> >>
> >> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
> >>
> >> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
> >>
> >> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term
loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
> >>
> >> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was
depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
> >>
> >> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook lolettecook@ wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Vickie Cook lolettecook@
> >> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> >> To:
> >> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
> >>
> >> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
> >>
> >> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck mdbuyingstuff@ wrote:
> >>
> >> From: MD Deck mdbuyingstuff@
> >> Subject: Hi from new member
> >> To:
> >> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
> >>
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to
all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a
year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to
reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a
while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
> >>
> >> Margie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Well, the remains found in 1674 were of the right ages for the princes, according to dental evidence they were related, they were buried in the right place (the Tower) and it was reported that velvet was found on one of the bones: a high status cloth suitable for princes, so it's at least possible that the princes were killed in 1483 and that Henry VII simply didn't know where they'd been buried. Buckingham, Henry's apparent two-faced pal, is my favourite for their disposal. However, I wouldn't rule out Richard III. The killers weren't likely to confess if they were still alive in 1485.
>
> Obviously, carbon dating or a DNA test on the remains would be a good idea, but I understand that the Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being dug up and the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks, like Charles II in 1674, the evidence is sufficient without a further autopsy.
>



I'm all for discussing anything that anyone is interested in, and I don't think one can plow the same ground too many times -- something new might turn up -- but weren't you here when we covered this topic fairly recently? Like within the past year or so? I seem to recall your making the same points then, and sticking firmly to them -- which is also fine. But haven't you had any new thoughts or done any research since then, to back up these points?

Some people had the base suspicion that you were writing a novel and were trolling this group for free research. Which is also fine, but it would be nice if people who were doing that would just say so.

Kay

"vermeertwo" wrote:
>
> Well, the remains found in 1674 were of the right ages for the princes, according to dental evidence they were related, they were buried in the right place (the Tower) <snip>

Carol responds:

We've been through all this multiple times. Just to repeat one point:
ten feet deep in the ground *under the foundations* of a staircase is not the "right place" considering that More's conveniently dead and anonymous priest supposedly buried the boys *at the foot* of some stairs and then *unburied* them, moving them to some more respectable place, ostensibly at Richard's and all in secrecy.

vermeeer:
> Obviously, carbon dating or a DNA test on the remains would be a good idea, but I understand that the Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being dug up and the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks, like Charles II in 1674, the evidence is sufficient without a further autopsy.

Carol responds: Whoever the skeletons belonged to, they could have had no descendants given their ages. Nor would either of the so-called princes (who had lost all their titles through their declared illegitimacy) be Elizabeth II's ancestor even if they lived. Elizabeth's genealogy is well known, and the boys are not among her ancestors (though their sister is).

Carol, who originally believed that Buckingham did it but was persuaded otherwise by Annette Carson's arguments and now thinks it much likelier that the boys were shipped to Burgundy
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Stephen - based on Ann Wroe's researches AND, self-evidently, the fact that I simply can't believe murders took place at the Tower of London about which Henry Tudor was unable to find a shred of evidence two years later. It seems to have been one of the very few things Henry felt unable to lie about, at least until many years had passed.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stephen Lark
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> >
> >
> >
> > I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and my meeting with her.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: MD Deck
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> >
> > Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> > To:
> > Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM
> >
> > Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: MD Deck
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> >
> > You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
> >
> > One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
> >
> > Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
> >
> > In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
> >
> > --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> > To:
> > Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
> >
> > Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
> >
> > --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@> wrote:
> >
> > From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@>
> > Subject: Hi from new member
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
> >
> > Margie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Oh how I wish I had time to address the question of the bones properly! It took me thirty pages to do so in eyewatering detail in "Maligned King", where I analysed all published opinions of experts in various fields that have appeared since the Tanner and Wright exhumation ... so, Vermeer, there's a lot to be said about those remains!

The assumptions made in 1933 about their ages were based on crude methods of calculation which have since been overtaken by techniques much more sophisticated - and one of those techniques suggests that at least one of them was likely to have been female (there is no sure way, even now, to ascertain the gender of pre-pubescent children from ancient remains, and certainly the 1933 assumption that they were boys had no scientific basis whatsoever). Added to this, there is the evidence of the serious jaw disease visible in the elder girl (oh all right, 'the elder child') as mentioned by Joan. A chronic disease of this nature would undoubtedly have affected his/her development (retardation equivalent to a year and a half has been suggested), therefore there is absolutely no way to deduce the age of the sufferer with any accuracy.

And the so-called relationship between the skeletons - or rather I must write 'relationship between the two skulls', because we don't know exactly how many skeletons were represented in the urn - was originally deduced purely on the basis of presumed hypodontia (congenitally missing teeth) which was later shown to be ... let's say misplaced assumption.

So we really don't know the ages, gender, or relationship between them. We certainly don't know how ancient they are, and in my book I have cited evidence of surface deposit accumulation at the Tower site to show that a good estimate would be pre-1066. As Paul says, they could be Roman.

A lot of mythical stories grew up around their discovery, and we really must discount yarns of their being found with scraps of velvet or face-to-face in a wood coffin.

We are left now with the supposed coincidence that the bones were found where Thomas More said they were initially secretly buried on the night of their murder - under a staircase at the Tower of London (an uncorroborated story uniquely attributable to More, by the way). What few people take into account is that (1) Thomas More then says that after this hasty interment they were later dug up by a priest and buried somewhere else; also (2) the bones of 1674 were found at a depth of ten feet, an impossible depth to achieve secretly in the space of one night. From More's account of a priest later digging them up and relocating them, clearly he could never have believed them to have been buried ten feet below a stone staircase in the first place. So actually those bones were found where More said they weren't.

Which brings us to Henry VII not knowing where the bodies had been buried. Too right. The fate of the boys was information that he desperately needed to know, because their survival was an active threat to his crown. His searches were fruitless, and - let us remember - this is still regarded as 'the mystery of the princes in the Tower' despite the alleged solving of the crime according to our friend Sherlock More! I find it impossible to believe that if they really HAD been killed at the Tower of London, Henry Tudor's men were unable to find a single believable story verifying the fact a mere two years later. It's estimated there must have been upwards of 600 persons who had access to the Tower, and who served and provisioned it, in the summer of 1483. And you can imagine the rewards (and threats) that must have been used to induce people to talk. Why did Henry discover nothing? Read my book and find out! Read my book also to learn how I deduced, with the help of anatomist Bill White, that the diseased skull in the urn could not have belonged to Edward V - a conclusion that no one has yet been able to challenge.
Bye for now
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?



Oh please! Where have you been the past few years? Right ages? Dental evidence? Buried in the right place? Velvet on one of the bones? Again I say, oh please! All discredited time and time again, unless you take More as being an eye witness that is! Carbon dating could, and probably would, show the bones in the Abbey to be from an earlier age, maybe even Roman. There is no evidence, sufficient or otherwise, to say those bones belong to anybody royal, let alone to the sons of Edward the Fourth.
Paul
over to you Annette, amongst others no doubt....

On 10 May 2011, at 14:26, vermeertwo wrote:

> Well, the remains found in 1674 were of the right ages for the princes, according to dental evidence they were related, they were buried in the right place (the Tower) and it was reported that velvet was found on one of the bones: a high status cloth suitable for princes, so it's at least possible that the princes were killed in 1483 and that Henry VII simply didn't know where they'd been buried. Buckingham, Henry's apparent two-faced pal, is my favourite for their disposal. However, I wouldn't rule out Richard III. The killers weren't likely to confess if they were still alive in 1485.
>
> Obviously, carbon dating or a DNA test on the remains would be a good idea, but I understand that the Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being dug up and the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks, like Charles II in 1674, the evidence is sufficient without a further autopsy.
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Stephen - based on Ann Wroe's researches AND, self-evidently, the fact that I simply can't believe murders took place at the Tower of London about which Henry Tudor was unable to find a shred of evidence two years later. It seems to have been one of the very few things Henry felt unable to lie about, at least until many years had passed.
>> Regards, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Stephen Lark
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and my meeting with her.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MD Deck
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>> Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>> To:
>> Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM
>>
>> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MD Deck
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>>
>> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>>
>> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>>
>> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>>
>> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
>> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
>> To:
>> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>>
>> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>>
>> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>> Subject: Hi from new member
>> To:
>> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>>
>> Margie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Thanks very much, Carol, for considering that my argument has merit - but may I just point out that my suggested destination for the boys was actually Flanders. And, although I agree with Stephen that the pretender whom Henry VII called Perkin Warbeck could indeed have been Richard of York, I do think it's sadly possible that one or both boys died by illness or other mishap within a short while after being moved from the Tower.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?



"vermeertwo" wrote:
>
> Well, the remains found in 1674 were of the right ages for the princes, according to dental evidence they were related, they were buried in the right place (the Tower) <snip>

Carol responds:

We've been through all this multiple times. Just to repeat one point:
ten feet deep in the ground *under the foundations* of a staircase is not the "right place" considering that More's conveniently dead and anonymous priest supposedly buried the boys *at the foot* of some stairs and then *unburied* them, moving them to some more respectable place, ostensibly at Richard's and all in secrecy.

vermeeer:
> Obviously, carbon dating or a DNA test on the remains would be a good idea, but I understand that the Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being dug up and the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks, like Charles II in 1674, the evidence is sufficient without a further autopsy.

Carol responds: Whoever the skeletons belonged to, they could have had no descendants given their ages. Nor would either of the so-called princes (who had lost all their titles through their declared illegitimacy) be Elizabeth II's ancestor even if they lived. Elizabeth's genealogy is well known, and the boys are not among her ancestors (though their sister is).

Carol, who originally believed that Buckingham did it but was persuaded otherwise by Annette Carson's arguments and now thinks it much likelier that the boys were shipped to Burgundy
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Stephen - based on Ann Wroe's researches AND, self-evidently, the fact that I simply can't believe murders took place at the Tower of London about which Henry Tudor was unable to find a shred of evidence two years later. It seems to have been one of the very few things Henry felt unable to lie about, at least until many years had passed.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stephen Lark
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> >
> >
> >
> > I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and my meeting with her.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: MD Deck
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> >
> > Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> > To:
> > Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM
> >
> > Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: MD Deck
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
> >
> > You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
> >
> > One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
> >
> > Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
> >
> > In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
> >
> > --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > Subject: Re: Hi from new member
> > To:
> > Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
> >
> > Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
> >
> > --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@> wrote:
> >
> > From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@>
> > Subject: Hi from new member
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
> >
> > Margie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Kay:
 
Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful reply.  I had no idea about the origination of the Beefeaters.
 
Margie 

--- On Mon, 5/9/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:


From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
To:
Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 5:24 PM


 





--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> You all have so nice and welcoming.  :)
>  
> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>  
> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king? 
>  
> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the  people were more weary than anything else?
>

He had an army, Richard III was dead, and who else was there? Richard's son had died, Edward IV's boys had vanished, Clarence's son was only a child and was soon in the custody of Tudor's mother. Richard had appointed Jack de la Pole as his heir, and De la Pole survived Bosworth, but there wasn't any rallying round him as the York heir, I don't believe. I wonder why Tudor didn't see to it that he disappeared, too.

Come to think of it, that's a question I'd like to see answered: Why didn't Tudor at least attaint De la Pole? Instead, he gave him some appointments.

But I don't think Tudor was accepted easily by everyone. The city of York shut its gates against him and sent word to London asking if they had to accept him as their king. And the year after he took the throne, Tudor was almost kidnapped, or was kidnapped but quickly freed, at York, if I recall correctly.

The crown didn't rest easily on the head of Henry VII. He spent much of his reign living in the Tower of London instead of more comfortable digs because it was such a secure fortress. He went on few progresses through the country. The famous Beefeaters were the personal guard created by him for his protection -- no previous king of England had had to have a private army to protect him from his own subjects.

Kay

The Tudors were proficient liars, for sure.  I am almost finished with G.J. Meyers' excellent book, The Tudors, and, once again, I find myself shocked ...even after all this time, it never ceases to amaze me how they could justify anything.

--- On Tue, 5/10/11, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:


From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
To:
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 4:14 AM


 



I agree with Stephen - based on Ann Wroe's researches AND, self-evidently, the fact that I simply can't believe murders took place at the Tower of London about which Henry Tudor was unable to find a shred of evidence two years later. It seems to have been one of the very few things Henry felt unable to lie about, at least until many years had passed.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and my meeting with her.

----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?

--- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
To:
Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM

Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.

----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

You all have so nice and welcoming. :)

One question I would like to get your thoughts about--

Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?

In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?

--- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:

From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Subject: Re: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM

Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!

--- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:

From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
Subject: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM

Hello!

I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)

Margie

Now, now...the die-hard Sherlockian asks you not to throw Mr. Holmes' good name around in such poor company as Mr. More....  :)
 
I think Mr. Holmes' advice would be useful to many so-called experts concerning Richard III's history:  "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence...Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
 
Margie

--- On Tue, 5/10/11, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:


From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
To:
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 11:13 AM


 



Oh how I wish I had time to address the question of the bones properly! It took me thirty pages to do so in eyewatering detail in "Maligned King", where I analysed all published opinions of experts in various fields that have appeared since the Tanner and Wright exhumation ... so, Vermeer, there's a lot to be said about those remains!

The assumptions made in 1933 about their ages were based on crude methods of calculation which have since been overtaken by techniques much more sophisticated - and one of those techniques suggests that at least one of them was likely to have been female (there is no sure way, even now, to ascertain the gender of pre-pubescent children from ancient remains, and certainly the 1933 assumption that they were boys had no scientific basis whatsoever). Added to this, there is the evidence of the serious jaw disease visible in the elder girl (oh all right, 'the elder child') as mentioned by Joan. A chronic disease of this nature would undoubtedly have affected his/her development (retardation equivalent to a year and a half has been suggested), therefore there is absolutely no way to deduce the age of the sufferer with any accuracy.

And the so-called relationship between the skeletons - or rather I must write 'relationship between the two skulls', because we don't know exactly how many skeletons were represented in the urn - was originally deduced purely on the basis of presumed hypodontia (congenitally missing teeth) which was later shown to be ... let's say misplaced assumption.

So we really don't know the ages, gender, or relationship between them. We certainly don't know how ancient they are, and in my book I have cited evidence of surface deposit accumulation at the Tower site to show that a good estimate would be pre-1066. As Paul says, they could be Roman.

A lot of mythical stories grew up around their discovery, and we really must discount yarns of their being found with scraps of velvet or face-to-face in a wood coffin.

We are left now with the supposed coincidence that the bones were found where Thomas More said they were initially secretly buried on the night of their murder - under a staircase at the Tower of London (an uncorroborated story uniquely attributable to More, by the way). What few people take into account is that (1) Thomas More then says that after this hasty interment they were later dug up by a priest and buried somewhere else; also (2) the bones of 1674 were found at a depth of ten feet, an impossible depth to achieve secretly in the space of one night. From More's account of a priest later digging them up and relocating them, clearly he could never have believed them to have been buried ten feet below a stone staircase in the first place. So actually those bones were found where More said they weren't.

Which brings us to Henry VII not knowing where the bodies had been buried. Too right. The fate of the boys was information that he desperately needed to know, because their survival was an active threat to his crown. His searches were fruitless, and - let us remember - this is still regarded as 'the mystery of the princes in the Tower' despite the alleged solving of the crime according to our friend Sherlock More! I find it impossible to believe that if they really HAD been killed at the Tower of London, Henry Tudor's men were unable to find a single believable story verifying the fact a mere two years later. It's estimated there must have been upwards of 600 persons who had access to the Tower, and who served and provisioned it, in the summer of 1483. And you can imagine the rewards (and threats) that must have been used to induce people to talk. Why did Henry discover nothing? Read my book and find out! Read my book also to learn how I deduced, with
the help of anatomist Bill White, that the diseased skull in the urn could not have belonged to Edward V - a conclusion that no one has yet been able to challenge.
Bye for now
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?

Oh please! Where have you been the past few years? Right ages? Dental evidence? Buried in the right place? Velvet on one of the bones? Again I say, oh please! All discredited time and time again, unless you take More as being an eye witness that is! Carbon dating could, and probably would, show the bones in the Abbey to be from an earlier age, maybe even Roman. There is no evidence, sufficient or otherwise, to say those bones belong to anybody royal, let alone to the sons of Edward the Fourth.
Paul
over to you Annette, amongst others no doubt....

On 10 May 2011, at 14:26, vermeertwo wrote:

> Well, the remains found in 1674 were of the right ages for the princes, according to dental evidence they were related, they were buried in the right place (the Tower) and it was reported that velvet was found on one of the bones: a high status cloth suitable for princes, so it's at least possible that the princes were killed in 1483 and that Henry VII simply didn't know where they'd been buried. Buckingham, Henry's apparent two-faced pal, is my favourite for their disposal. However, I wouldn't rule out Richard III. The killers weren't likely to confess if they were still alive in 1485.
>
> Obviously, carbon dating or a DNA test on the remains would be a good idea, but I understand that the Queen doesn't like the idea of her ancestors being dug up and the Dean of Westminster Abbey thinks, like Charles II in 1674, the evidence is sufficient without a further autopsy.
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Stephen - based on Ann Wroe's researches AND, self-evidently, the fact that I simply can't believe murders took place at the Tower of London about which Henry Tudor was unable to find a shred of evidence two years later. It seems to have been one of the very few things Henry felt unable to lie about, at least until many years had passed.
>> Regards, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Stephen Lark
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would give Warbeck a one in three chance of being correct and one in three of being confused enough to believe what he said, thus one in three of being a conscious pretender - based on Ann Wroe's book and my meeting with her.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MD Deck
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>> Which one do you belive to be a truth-teller?
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>> To:
>> Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 3:03 AM
>>
>> Because he enforced his rule, ruthlessly to begin with, and because some believed his claim, in France, to be a son of Henry VI. After all, youths emerged claiming to be any Yorkist, including one sitting in the Tower, and some people believed them. One may well have been telling the truth.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MD Deck
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: Thanks for the warm welcome...and a ?
>>
>> You all have so nice and welcoming. :)
>>
>> One question I would like to get your thoughts about--
>>
>> Why do you think Henry Tudor was accepted so (and I use the term loosely) 'easily' as the new king?
>>
>> In the most simplistic terms, I'm thinking the nobility was depleated and the people were more weary than anything else?
>>
>> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
>> Subject: Re: Hi from new member
>> To:
>> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 6:05 PM
>>
>> Welcome Margie, I've learned so much from reading these posts!
>>
>> --- On Sat, 5/7/11, MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>> Subject: Hi from new member
>> To:
>> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 1:57 PM
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you. I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely. I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself. :)
>>
>> Margie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>  
> I joined your group today and I wanted introduce myself briefly to all of you.  I am a bit of a 'newbie' to the Ricardian study, about a year and a half, but have enjoyed it immensely.  I look forward to reading your posts, learning from your ideas, and maybe, once in a while, coming up with something interesting to say myself.  :)
>  
> Margie
>
>
>
Hello from another new member, Mo, my interest is in the man Richard, what he thought, was he a bad judge of character?Some loved him some disliked him, his brother trusted him, whats the real man really like?

--- In , "Mo Harris" <moharris483@...> wrote:

> Hello from another new member, Mo, my interest is in the man Richard, what he thought, was he a bad judge of character?Some loved him some disliked him, his brother trusted him, whats the real man really like?
>


Hi, Mo and welcome aboard.

What Richard was really like is a subject that has intrigued people for centuries. I'm not sure it is possible to know what anyone is really like, much less when we are looking across the centuries at someone who lived in a vastly different world. But with Richard in particular, we have a man who seems conscientious and fair-minded, often personally hearing minor complaints from his subjects, and deciding for them (Get those weirs out of the river!), with emotional attachment to his wife and son to an extent that was apparently remarkable for the time, yet who stands accused of the heinous crime of child-murder.

The attempt to sift out the facts and then reconcile them keeps the debate alive.

Kay

When I was 7 years old my mother took me to see a re-release of Olivier's Richard III film. afterwards she asked me if I had enjoyed it. I answered, 'Yes Mummy, but he wasn't like that.' From that moment on the Romans I had been besotted by til then went onto the back seat, and it was Richard this and Richard that. I have since that date read every word I could find written about the man, both pro and con, contemporary and since, visited every place he is known to have visited, stayed where he stayed, slept as close to possible to places he slept. I cried most of my way through my first reading of Kendall's biography as I realised that at last someone else had discovered what I already knew. This was a great humane man.
I have never found anything about Richard to stop me respecting, admiring, and loving him. If he asked me to rush to some distance place to stand at his side in the morning, you wouldn't see me for dust. I'd be there. I do not doubt the man's honesty, integrity, and natural goodness. His humanity, sense of justice, and fair dealing shows clearly in his dealings with ordinary people, and his lack of ruthlessness is displayed in his dealings with some of his peers, Stanley and Margaret Beaufort to name but two. This latter is one of his few faults.
I have never heard or read of anything he has done or said or written to shake my loyalty, and, if I didn't in a previous life, die with him, all he has to do is ask, and I'll just say "where and when sire".
Paul


On 19 May 2011, at 17:01, oregon_katy wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "Mo Harris" <moharris483@...> wrote:
>
>> Hello from another new member, Mo, my interest is in the man Richard, what he thought, was he a bad judge of character?Some loved him some disliked him, his brother trusted him, whats the real man really like?
>>
>
>
> Hi, Mo and welcome aboard.
>
> What Richard was really like is a subject that has intrigued people for centuries. I'm not sure it is possible to know what anyone is really like, much less when we are looking across the centuries at someone who lived in a vastly different world. But with Richard in particular, we have a man who seems conscientious and fair-minded, often personally hearing minor complaints from his subjects, and deciding for them (Get those weirs out of the river!), with emotional attachment to his wife and son to an extent that was apparently remarkable for the time, yet who stands accused of the heinous crime of child-murder.
>
> The attempt to sift out the facts and then reconcile them keeps the debate alive.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Beautifully said, Paul....


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member


 
When I was 7 years old my mother took me to see a re-release of Olivier's Richard III film. afterwards she asked me if I had enjoyed it. I answered, 'Yes Mummy, but he wasn't like that.' From that moment on the Romans I had been besotted by til then went onto the back seat, and it was Richard this and Richard that. I have since that date read every word I could find written about the man, both pro and con, contemporary and since, visited every place he is known to have visited, stayed where he stayed, slept as close to possible to places he slept. I cried most of my way through my first reading of Kendall's biography as I realised that at last someone else had discovered what I already knew. This was a great humane man.
I have never found anything about Richard to stop me respecting, admiring, and loving him. If he asked me to rush to some distance place to stand at his side in the morning, you wouldn't see me for dust. I'd be there. I do not doubt the man's honesty, integrity, and natural goodness. His humanity, sense of justice, and fair dealing shows clearly in his dealings with ordinary people, and his lack of ruthlessness is displayed in his dealings with some of his peers, Stanley and Margaret Beaufort to name but two. This latter is one of his few faults.
I have never heard or read of anything he has done or said or written to shake my loyalty, and, if I didn't in a previous life, die with him, all he has to do is ask, and I'll just say "where and when sire".
Paul

On 19 May 2011, at 17:01, oregon_katy wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "Mo Harris" <moharris483@...> wrote:
>
>> Hello from another new member, Mo, my interest is in the man Richard, what he thought, was he a bad judge of character?Some loved him some disliked him, his brother trusted him, whats the real man really like?
>>
>
>
> Hi, Mo and welcome aboard.
>
> What Richard was really like is a subject that has intrigued people for centuries. I'm not sure it is possible to know what anyone is really like, much less when we are looking across the centuries at someone who lived in a vastly different world. But with Richard in particular, we have a man who seems conscientious and fair-minded, often personally hearing minor complaints from his subjects, and deciding for them (Get those weirs out of the river!), with emotional attachment to his wife and son to an extent that was apparently remarkable for the time, yet who stands accused of the heinous crime of child-murder.
>
> The attempt to sift out the facts and then reconcile them keeps the debate alive.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> When I was 7 years old my mother took me to see a re-release of Olivier's Richard III film. afterwards she asked me if I had enjoyed it. I answered, 'Yes Mummy, but he wasn't like that.' From that moment on the Romans I had been besotted by til then went onto the back seat, and it was Richard this and Richard that. I have since that date read every word I could find written about the man, both pro and con, contemporary and since, visited every place he is known to have visited, stayed where he stayed, slept as close to possible to places he slept. I cried most of my way through my first reading of Kendall's biography as I realised that at last someone else had discovered what I already knew. This was a great humane man.
> I have never found anything about Richard to stop me respecting, admiring, and loving him. If he asked me to rush to some distance place to stand at his side in the morning, you wouldn't see me for dust. I'd be there. I do not doubt the man's honesty, integrity, and natural goodness. His humanity, sense of justice, and fair dealing shows clearly in his dealings with ordinary people, and his lack of ruthlessness is displayed in his dealings with some of his peers, Stanley and Margaret Beaufort to name but two. This latter is one of his few faults.
> I have never heard or read of anything he has done or said or written to shake my loyalty, and, if I didn't in a previous life, die with him, all he has to do is ask, and I'll just say "where and when sire".
> Paul



Wow, Paul, that's beautiful! If I hadn't already known it, those words would have revealed that you are a poet and playwright, and a man of heart.

Kay

Wonderful Paul!  I always love reading your comments, this is just how I feel
Vickie

--- On Thu, 5/19/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2011, 4:30 PM


 



When I was 7 years old my mother took me to see a re-release of Olivier's Richard III film. afterwards she asked me if I had enjoyed it. I answered, 'Yes Mummy, but he wasn't like that.' From that moment on the Romans I had been besotted by til then went onto the back seat, and it was Richard this and Richard that. I have since that date read every word I could find written about the man, both pro and con, contemporary and since, visited every place he is known to have visited, stayed where he stayed, slept as close to possible to places he slept. I cried most of my way through my first reading of Kendall's biography as I realised that at last someone else had discovered what I already knew. This was a great humane man.
I have never found anything about Richard to stop me respecting, admiring, and loving him. If he asked me to rush to some distance place to stand at his side in the morning, you wouldn't see me for dust. I'd be there. I do not doubt the man's honesty, integrity, and natural goodness. His humanity, sense of justice, and fair dealing shows clearly in his dealings with ordinary people, and his lack of ruthlessness is displayed in his dealings with some of his peers, Stanley and Margaret Beaufort to name but two. This latter is one of his few faults.
I have never heard or read of anything he has done or said or written to shake my loyalty, and, if I didn't in a previous life, die with him, all he has to do is ask, and I'll just say "where and when sire".
Paul

On 19 May 2011, at 17:01, oregon_katy wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "Mo Harris" <moharris483@...> wrote:
>
>> Hello from another new member, Mo, my interest is in the man Richard, what he thought, was he a bad judge of character?Some loved him some disliked him, his brother trusted him, whats the real man really like?
>>
>
>
> Hi, Mo and welcome aboard.
>
> What Richard was really like is a subject that has intrigued people for centuries. I'm not sure it is possible to know what anyone is really like, much less when we are looking across the centuries at someone who lived in a vastly different world. But with Richard in particular, we have a man who seems conscientious and fair-minded, often personally hearing minor complaints from his subjects, and deciding for them (Get those weirs out of the river!), with emotional attachment to his wife and son to an extent that was apparently remarkable for the time, yet who stands accused of the heinous crime of child-murder.
>
> The attempt to sift out the facts and then reconcile them keeps the debate alive.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Thank you
Paul

On 19 May 2011, at 23:10, Judy Thomson wrote:

> Beautifully said, Paul....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member
>
>
>
> When I was 7 years old my mother took me to see a re-release of Olivier's Richard III film. afterwards she asked me if I had enjoyed it. I answered, 'Yes Mummy, but he wasn't like that.' From that moment on the Romans I had been besotted by til then went onto the back seat, and it was Richard this and Richard that. I have since that date read every word I could find written about the man, both pro and con, contemporary and since, visited every place he is known to have visited, stayed where he stayed, slept as close to possible to places he slept. I cried most of my way through my first reading of Kendall's biography as I realised that at last someone else had discovered what I already knew. This was a great humane man.
> I have never found anything about Richard to stop me respecting, admiring, and loving him. If he asked me to rush to some distance place to stand at his side in the morning, you wouldn't see me for dust. I'd be there. I do not doubt the man's honesty, integrity, and natural goodness. His humanity, sense of justice, and fair dealing shows clearly in his dealings with ordinary people, and his lack of ruthlessness is displayed in his dealings with some of his peers, Stanley and Margaret Beaufort to name but two. This latter is one of his few faults.
> I have never heard or read of anything he has done or said or written to shake my loyalty, and, if I didn't in a previous life, die with him, all he has to do is ask, and I'll just say "where and when sire".
> Paul
>
> On 19 May 2011, at 17:01, oregon_katy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "Mo Harris" <moharris483@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello from another new member, Mo, my interest is in the man Richard, what he thought, was he a bad judge of character?Some loved him some disliked him, his brother trusted him, whats the real man really like?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, Mo and welcome aboard.
>>
>> What Richard was really like is a subject that has intrigued people for centuries. I'm not sure it is possible to know what anyone is really like, much less when we are looking across the centuries at someone who lived in a vastly different world. But with Richard in particular, we have a man who seems conscientious and fair-minded, often personally hearing minor complaints from his subjects, and deciding for them (Get those weirs out of the river!), with emotional attachment to his wife and son to an extent that was apparently remarkable for the time, yet who stands accused of the heinous crime of child-murder.
>>
>> The attempt to sift out the facts and then reconcile them keeps the debate alive.
>>
>> Kay
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Many thanks
Paul

On 20 May 2011, at 01:31, oregon_katy wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> When I was 7 years old my mother took me to see a re-release of Olivier's Richard III film. afterwards she asked me if I had enjoyed it. I answered, 'Yes Mummy, but he wasn't like that.' From that moment on the Romans I had been besotted by til then went onto the back seat, and it was Richard this and Richard that. I have since that date read every word I could find written about the man, both pro and con, contemporary and since, visited every place he is known to have visited, stayed where he stayed, slept as close to possible to places he slept. I cried most of my way through my first reading of Kendall's biography as I realised that at last someone else had discovered what I already knew. This was a great humane man.
>> I have never found anything about Richard to stop me respecting, admiring, and loving him. If he asked me to rush to some distance place to stand at his side in the morning, you wouldn't see me for dust. I'd be there. I do not doubt the man's honesty, integrity, and natural goodness. His humanity, sense of justice, and fair dealing shows clearly in his dealings with ordinary people, and his lack of ruthlessness is displayed in his dealings with some of his peers, Stanley and Margaret Beaufort to name but two. This latter is one of his few faults.
>> I have never heard or read of anything he has done or said or written to shake my loyalty, and, if I didn't in a previous life, die with him, all he has to do is ask, and I'll just say "where and when sire".
>> Paul
>
>
>
> Wow, Paul, that's beautiful! If I hadn't already known it, those words would have revealed that you are a poet and playwright, and a man of heart.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I agree with all you say




________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To:
Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 3:03:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member

 
Wonderful Paul!  I always love reading your comments, this is just how I feel
Vickie

--- On Thu, 5/19/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Hi from new member
To:
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2011, 4:30 PM

 

When I was 7 years old my mother took me to see a re-release of Olivier's
Richard III film. afterwards she asked me if I had enjoyed it. I answered, 'Yes
Mummy, but he wasn't like that.' From that moment on the Romans I had been
besotted by til then went onto the back seat, and it was Richard this and
Richard that. I have since that date read every word I could find written about
the man, both pro and con, contemporary and since, visited every place he is
known to have visited, stayed where he stayed, slept as close to possible to
places he slept. I cried most of my way through my first reading of Kendall's
biography as I realised that at last someone else had discovered what I already
knew. This was a great humane man.
I have never found anything about Richard to stop me respecting, admiring, and
loving him. If he asked me to rush to some distance place to stand at his side
in the morning, you wouldn't see me for dust. I'd be there. I do not doubt the
man's honesty, integrity, and natural goodness. His humanity, sense of justice,
and fair dealing shows clearly in his dealings with ordinary people, and his
lack of ruthlessness is displayed in his dealings with some of his peers,
Stanley and Margaret Beaufort to name but two. This latter is one of his few
faults.
I have never heard or read of anything he has done or said or written to shake
my loyalty, and, if I didn't in a previous life, die with him, all he has to do
is ask, and I'll just say "where and when sire".

Paul

On 19 May 2011, at 17:01, oregon_katy wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "Mo Harris" <moharris483@...>
>wrote:
>
>> Hello from another new member, Mo, my interest is in the man Richard, what he
>>thought, was he a bad judge of character?Some loved him some disliked him, his
>>brother trusted him, whats the real man really like?
>>
>
>
> Hi, Mo and welcome aboard.
>
> What Richard was really like is a subject that has intrigued people for
>centuries. I'm not sure it is possible to know what anyone is really like, much
>less when we are looking across the centuries at someone who lived in a vastly
>different world. But with Richard in particular, we have a man who seems
>conscientious and fair-minded, often personally hearing minor complaints from
>his subjects, and deciding for them (Get those weirs out of the river!), with
>emotional attachment to his wife and son to an extent that was apparently
>remarkable for the time, yet who stands accused of the heinous crime of
>child-murder.
>
> The attempt to sift out the facts and then reconcile them keeps the debate
>alive.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>