Tomb of Thomas Stanley

Tomb of Thomas Stanley

Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.

In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.

Nope - but here it is on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stanley_tombs,_Ormskirk_.jpg

I was at Standrop recently however, that is certainly a sight to see:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/taylordave/3841266554/in/photostream/

Rob

You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting


--- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM


 



Tomb of Thomas Stanley

Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg

Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)

We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty – ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.


--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I do have to say that when, as a playwright, I deal with Thomas or William
Stanley, they end up being very rich material when it comes to
characteriizing and creating dialogue for them. Thomas in particular took
on a lot of George Sanders in my play.

Also, I have say this much about the Stanleys: when an authority figure
dealt with the Stanleys, that figure knew exactly where he stood with this
clan (unless there was something seriously wrong with the authority figure's
mental capacities). Other families or individuals might swear fealty up and
down and then strike your heart when they betray you, but the Stanley clan
was always very clear: Stanley was for Stanley and Stanley alone. They
were honest about that: you could almost unquestioningly count on that.
They were a constant in a way that, for example, Henry Stafford, never could
be.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
>
> Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as
> pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph
> Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
>
> We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty ý
> ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives
> and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas
> More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few
> examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest
> or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at
> Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
>
>
> --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a
> connection to Richard III interesting
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
>
> > Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> > To:
> > Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
> >
> >
> > ý
> >
> >
> >
> > Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> >
> > Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists?
> Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Interesting the gilded copper, since that was forbidden by law...at least under Edward 4


________________________________
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg

Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)

We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty  ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping – in his dreams - to become King himself. I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.

Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth. If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.


--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> I do have to say that when, as a playwright, I deal with Thomas or William
> Stanley, they end up being very rich material when it comes to
> characteriizing and creating dialogue for them. Thomas in particular took
> on a lot of George Sanders in my play.
>
> Also, I have say this much about the Stanleys: when an authority figure
> dealt with the Stanleys, that figure knew exactly where he stood with this
> clan (unless there was something seriously wrong with the authority figure's
> mental capacities). Other families or individuals might swear fealty up and
> down and then strike your heart when they betray you, but the Stanley clan
> was always very clear: Stanley was for Stanley and Stanley alone. They
> were honest about that: you could almost unquestioningly count on that.
> They were a constant in a way that, for example, Henry Stafford, never could
> be.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
> >
> > Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as
> > pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph
> > Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
> >
> > We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty –
> > ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives
> > and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas
> > More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few
> > examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest
> > or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at
> > Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
> >
> >
> > --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a
> > connection to Richard III interesting
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
> >
> > > Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> > > To:
> > > Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> > >
> > > Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists?
> > Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Don't know where you get your information from sometimes. Most contemporary chronicles actually do say Richard was popular as most were glad to see man on the throne rather than a Woodville dominated child. Henry Stafford was always after the main chance for himself. It brought him to the block as it would do his son, who learned nothing from what happened to his father.
As for Bosworth being a vote on Richard, remember who was responsible for what happened to Richard during his charge on Tudor. Two more men looking after themselves yet again, both nursing a personal dislike for their king.
Richard chose to think that Thomas would at least stay in his usual neutral position on the field. He should have got rid of him at the time of Hastings plotting instead of taking him back into the fold and trusting on reconciliation. That was his biggest mistake.
Paul


On 17 Jun 2011, at 15:41, vermeertwo wrote:

> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping  in his dreams - to become King himself. I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.
>
> Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth. If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.
>
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>>
>> I do have to say that when, as a playwright, I deal with Thomas or William
>> Stanley, they end up being very rich material when it comes to
>> characteriizing and creating dialogue for them. Thomas in particular took
>> on a lot of George Sanders in my play.
>>
>> Also, I have say this much about the Stanleys: when an authority figure
>> dealt with the Stanleys, that figure knew exactly where he stood with this
>> clan (unless there was something seriously wrong with the authority figure's
>> mental capacities). Other families or individuals might swear fealty up and
>> down and then strike your heart when they betray you, but the Stanley clan
>> was always very clear: Stanley was for Stanley and Stanley alone. They
>> were honest about that: you could almost unquestioningly count on that.
>> They were a constant in a way that, for example, Henry Stafford, never could
>> be.
>>
>> Maria
>> ejbronte@...
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
>>>
>>> Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as
>>> pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph
>>> Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
>>>
>>> We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty 
>>> ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives
>>> and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas
>>> More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few
>>> examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest
>>> or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at
>>> Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a
>>> connection to Richard III interesting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
>>>
>>>> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>>>> To:
>>>> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>>>>
>>>> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists?
>>> Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping – in his dreams - to become King himself. I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.
>
> Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth. If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.
>


Hi, again, vermeer. How's your anti-Richard book going? I see you're still trolling this group for free research by means of the time-honored lazy writer's trick of making some provocative statement and watching knowledgeable people try to correct it, helpfully citing all the references to back up their facts.

I think you're in the wrong group -- the Henry VII Society must be meeting someplace.

Katy

I think you have identified "vermeertwo" correctly.

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley





--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping - in his dreams - to become King himself. I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.
>
> Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth. If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.
>

Hi, again, vermeer. How's your anti-Richard book going? I see you're still trolling this group for free research by means of the time-honored lazy writer's trick of making some provocative statement and watching knowledgeable people try to correct it, helpfully citing all the references to back up their facts.

I think you're in the wrong group -- the Henry VII Society must be meeting someplace.

Katy

Hi Judy:
 
Please forgive my ignorance:  why was the gilded copper forbidden?  Did it have something to do with a guild or trade protection, or was the use of the copper restricted to certain class?
 
Margie


--- On Thu, 6/16/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 11:07 AM


 



Interesting the gilded copper, since that was forbidden by law...at least under Edward 4

________________________________
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg

Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)

We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty  ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I must agree with you, Paul. 

Contemporary (w/us) writers put too much emphasis on "popular" opinion, when, in fact, it wasn't the Vox populis at all, just a couple of snarky fellows with big grindstones, whose own documents managed to survive Tudor times. 

Those Ts were responsible for more wholesale loss of books, art, architecture et al. than any other dy-nasty I can recall. Even Old Noll comes off looking tolerant.... For my purposes, all this makes for fun fiction but lamentable historic preservation.

Judy

[PS. If only we'd find some genuine cache of Paston-like letters, one day? Hmmmmm.] 




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

Don't know where you get your information from sometimes. Most contemporary chronicles actually do say Richard was popular as most were glad to see man on the throne rather than a Woodville dominated child. Henry Stafford was always after the main chance for himself. It brought him to the block as it would do his son, who learned nothing from what happened to his father.
As for Bosworth being a vote on Richard, remember who was responsible for what happened to Richard during his charge on Tudor. Two more men looking after themselves yet again, both nursing a personal dislike for their king.
Richard chose to think that Thomas would at least stay in his usual neutral position on the field. He should have got rid of him at the time of Hastings plotting instead of taking him back into the fold and trusting on reconciliation.  That was his biggest mistake.
Paul


On 17 Jun 2011, at 15:41, vermeertwo wrote:

> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary  chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping  in his dreams - to become King himself.  I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.
>
> Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth.  If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.
>
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>>
>> I do have to say that when, as a playwright, I deal with Thomas or William
>> Stanley, they end up being very rich material when it comes to
>> characteriizing and creating dialogue for them.  Thomas in particular took
>> on a lot of George Sanders in my play.
>>
>> Also, I have say this much about the Stanleys:  when an authority figure
>> dealt with the Stanleys, that figure knew exactly where he stood with this
>> clan (unless there was something seriously wrong with the authority figure's
>> mental capacities).  Other families or individuals might swear fealty up and
>> down and then strike your heart when they betray you, but the Stanley clan
>> was always very clear:  Stanley was for Stanley and Stanley alone.  They
>> were honest about that:  you could almost unquestioningly count on that.
>> They were a constant in a way that, for example, Henry Stafford, never could
>> be.
>>
>> Maria
>> ejbronte@...
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
>>>
>>> Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as
>>> pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph
>>> Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
>>>
>>> We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty 
>>> ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives
>>> and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas
>>> More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few
>>> examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest
>>> or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at
>>> Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a
>>> connection to Richard III interesting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
>>>
>>>> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>>>> To:
>>>> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>>>>
>>>> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists?
>>> Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi, Margie! It's been a while, but I believe it was a law meant to prevent deception. From ancient times, people have "coated" base metals with gold or silver, hoping to sell their products as pure gold and silver. In one of Edward's laws, this was specifically forbidden. There may have been exceptions, of course, especially for objects honestly labelled as gilt or sheathed. I know very little else; this was one of those tidbits I stumbled upon, unsought, while doing other research. I noted it, but didn't reference...who thought I'd need this, 20 years later?  

For example, I have a note about a salt cellar pawned to a London merchant by Richard, winter of '84, for sixty-some pounds. Described as gilt silver (gold on sterling? vermeil, in our lingo; that would be okay, as the underlying metal is presumably no less than silver) with pearls, a mighty coffer upheld by "blackamoors" which could mean almost any sort of exotic, dark figures - Arabic, Muslim, African, Egyptianate? It was probably quite spectacular...and long since melted down. Sometimes, it's nice to look at one's own jewelry, etc., and ponder: What was this, once? Where did this gold originate? ("We are stardust, We are golden, We are billion year old carbon..." Joni Mitchell, Woodstock).

Judy 


________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 
Hi Judy:
 
Please forgive my ignorance:  why was the gilded copper forbidden?  Did it have something to do with a guild or trade protection, or was the use of the copper restricted to certain class?
 
Margie

--- On Thu, 6/16/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 11:07 AM

 

Interesting the gilded copper, since that was forbidden by law...at least under Edward 4

________________________________
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg

Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)

We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty  ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

teehee. Thanks, Katy. Weren't those *ahems* Desmond S./Michael H. tricxy along similar lines? (My friend Patty is still gunnin' for bear w/Dr. M.H. for kaboshing her doctoral thesis on Anne of Bohemia at Kalamazoozoozoo...) but better they play in the sunshine where we can see'em...? I prefer to know about roaches and snakes...forewarned, etc.

J


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 


--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping  in his dreams - to become King himself. I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.
>
> Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth. If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.
>

Hi, again, vermeer. How's your anti-Richard book going? I see you're still trolling this group for free research by means of the time-honored lazy writer's trick of making some provocative statement and watching knowledgeable people try to correct it, helpfully citing all the references to back up their facts.

I think you're in the wrong group -- the Henry VII Society must be meeting someplace.

Katy

wow! vermeer..just exactly how big is that little muck stirring stick of yours.
stafford is significantly responsible for putting power into the hands of beaufort/stanley and tudor factions. his betrayal has been downplayed and/or missed by tudor historians.
 
buckingham was going after the throne. he was using the beaufort/tudors to eliminate the competition, that he himself had not eliminated.
 
buckingham needed the beauforts and their supporters to pull off his coup d'etat. let them do the muck raking..and then once they had destroyed richard..he could step forward as the rightful heir to both the houses of plantagenet and lancaster. h7's claim was weak, if not void. it was only by survivorship and conquest..as well as his marriage to e4's daughter elizabeth of york that the tudors became more than a blurb in history.
 
richard's golden ship sank because of the vermin buckingham. the rat gnawed the holes in it..and then the tudors allowed the rodent to drown in its fecal own matter.
 
one can only ponder how different the world would be had richard survived. the changes he was bringing about to the english laws only offers us a hint of richard's brilliant mind.
 
do some research on richard the man..not on the legends surrounding him.
then use your little muck stick to stir up some real truths.
 
roslyn
--- On Fri, 6/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Received: Friday, June 17, 2011, 10:41 AM


 



I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping  in his dreams - to become King himself. I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.

Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth. If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> I do have to say that when, as a playwright, I deal with Thomas or William
> Stanley, they end up being very rich material when it comes to
> characteriizing and creating dialogue for them. Thomas in particular took
> on a lot of George Sanders in my play.
>
> Also, I have say this much about the Stanleys: when an authority figure
> dealt with the Stanleys, that figure knew exactly where he stood with this
> clan (unless there was something seriously wrong with the authority figure's
> mental capacities). Other families or individuals might swear fealty up and
> down and then strike your heart when they betray you, but the Stanley clan
> was always very clear: Stanley was for Stanley and Stanley alone. They
> were honest about that: you could almost unquestioningly count on that.
> They were a constant in a way that, for example, Henry Stafford, never could
> be.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
> >
> > Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as
> > pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph
> > Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
> >
> > We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty 
> > ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives
> > and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas
> > More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few
> > examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest
> > or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at
> > Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
> >
> >
> > --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a
> > connection to Richard III interesting
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
> >
> > > Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> > > To:
> > > Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> > >
> > > Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists?
> > Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Well said, Rose!!! 
Roger that, Jan Twoo....

Go buy yourself a Pearl of great price, toss before Swine, then let us know how that's working for thee.

Judy T. in Chicago, 
where there'll always be a nice orange hoodied jumper with your name on it. Blago, right?


________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 
wow! vermeer..just exactly how big is that little muck stirring stick of yours.
stafford is significantly responsible for putting power into the hands of beaufort/stanley and tudor factions. his betrayal has been downplayed and/or missed by tudor historians.
 
buckingham was going after the throne. he was using the beaufort/tudors to eliminate the competition, that he himself had not eliminated.
 
buckingham needed the beauforts and their supporters to pull off his coup d'etat. let them do the muck raking..and then once they had destroyed richard..he could step forward as the rightful heir to both the houses of plantagenet and lancaster. h7's claim was weak, if not void. it was only by survivorship and conquest..as well as his marriage to e4's daughter elizabeth of york that the tudors became more than a blurb in history.
 
richard's golden ship sank because of the vermin buckingham. the rat gnawed the holes in it..and then the tudors allowed the rodent to drown in its fecal own matter.
 
one can only ponder how different the world would be had richard survived. the changes he was bringing about to the english laws only offers us a hint of richard's brilliant mind.
 
do some research on richard the man..not on the legends surrounding him.
then use your little muck stick to stir up some real truths.
 
roslyn
--- On Fri, 6/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Received: Friday, June 17, 2011, 10:41 AM

 

I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping  in his dreams - to become King himself. I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.

Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth. If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> I do have to say that when, as a playwright, I deal with Thomas or William
> Stanley, they end up being very rich material when it comes to
> characteriizing and creating dialogue for them. Thomas in particular took
> on a lot of George Sanders in my play.
>
> Also, I have say this much about the Stanleys: when an authority figure
> dealt with the Stanleys, that figure knew exactly where he stood with this
> clan (unless there was something seriously wrong with the authority figure's
> mental capacities). Other families or individuals might swear fealty up and
> down and then strike your heart when they betray you, but the Stanley clan
> was always very clear: Stanley was for Stanley and Stanley alone. They
> were honest about that: you could almost unquestioningly count on that.
> They were a constant in a way that, for example, Henry Stafford, never could
> be.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
> >
> > Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as
> > pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph
> > Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
> >
> > We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty 
> > ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives
> > and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas
> > More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few
> > examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest
> > or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at
> > Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
> >
> >
> > --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a
> > connection to Richard III interesting
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
> >
> > > Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> > > To:
> > > Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> > >
> > > Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists?
> > Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I wish I had a like button!!


--- On Fri, 6/17/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:


From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Date: Friday, June 17, 2011, 3:15 PM


 



wow! vermeer..just exactly how big is that little muck stirring stick of yours.
stafford is significantly responsible for putting power into the hands of beaufort/stanley and tudor factions. his betrayal has been downplayed and/or missed by tudor historians.
 
buckingham was going after the throne. he was using the beaufort/tudors to eliminate the competition, that he himself had not eliminated.
 
buckingham needed the beauforts and their supporters to pull off his coup d'etat. let them do the muck raking..and then once they had destroyed richard..he could step forward as the rightful heir to both the houses of plantagenet and lancaster. h7's claim was weak, if not void. it was only by survivorship and conquest..as well as his marriage to e4's daughter elizabeth of york that the tudors became more than a blurb in history.
 
richard's golden ship sank because of the vermin buckingham. the rat gnawed the holes in it..and then the tudors allowed the rodent to drown in its fecal own matter.
 
one can only ponder how different the world would be had richard survived. the changes he was bringing about to the english laws only offers us a hint of richard's brilliant mind.
 
do some research on richard the man..not on the legends surrounding him.
then use your little muck stick to stir up some real truths.
 
roslyn
--- On Fri, 6/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Received: Friday, June 17, 2011, 10:41 AM

 

I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping  in his dreams - to become King himself. I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.

Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth. If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> I do have to say that when, as a playwright, I deal with Thomas or William
> Stanley, they end up being very rich material when it comes to
> characteriizing and creating dialogue for them. Thomas in particular took
> on a lot of George Sanders in my play.
>
> Also, I have say this much about the Stanleys: when an authority figure
> dealt with the Stanleys, that figure knew exactly where he stood with this
> clan (unless there was something seriously wrong with the authority figure's
> mental capacities). Other families or individuals might swear fealty up and
> down and then strike your heart when they betray you, but the Stanley clan
> was always very clear: Stanley was for Stanley and Stanley alone. They
> were honest about that: you could almost unquestioningly count on that.
> They were a constant in a way that, for example, Henry Stafford, never could
> be.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
> >
> > Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as
> > pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph
> > Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
> >
> > We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty 
> > ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives
> > and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas
> > More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few
> > examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest
> > or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at
> > Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
> >
> >
> > --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a
> > connection to Richard III interesting
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
> >
> > > Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> > > To:
> > > Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> > >
> > > Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists?
> > Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Judy--that makes perfect sense.  I've always said that I'm not smart enough to be a crook, and once again here's a perfect example--I had not thought of deception.
 
The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 
 
Thanks again for the great information--no specific reference needed for me...I'm just being a sponge soaking up the good info for no particular purpose but my own intellectual entertainment. 

Margie

--- On Fri, 6/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Friday, June 17, 2011, 2:58 PM


 



Hi, Margie! It's been a while, but I believe it was a law meant to prevent deception. From ancient times, people have "coated" base metals with gold or silver, hoping to sell their products as pure gold and silver. In one of Edward's laws, this was specifically forbidden. There may have been exceptions, of course, especially for objects honestly labelled as gilt or sheathed. I know very little else; this was one of those tidbits I stumbled upon, unsought, while doing other research. I noted it, but didn't reference...who thought I'd need this, 20 years later?  

For example, I have a note about a salt cellar pawned to a London merchant by Richard, winter of '84, for sixty-some pounds. Described as gilt silver (gold on sterling? vermeil, in our lingo; that would be okay, as the underlying metal is presumably no less than silver) with pearls, a mighty coffer upheld by "blackamoors" which could mean almost any sort of exotic, dark figures - Arabic, Muslim, African, Egyptianate? It was probably quite spectacular...and long since melted down. Sometimes, it's nice to look at one's own jewelry, etc., and ponder: What was this, once? Where did this gold originate? ("We are stardust, We are golden, We are billion year old carbon..." Joni Mitchell, Woodstock).

Judy 

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
Hi Judy:
 
Please forgive my ignorance:  why was the gilded copper forbidden?  Did it have something to do with a guild or trade protection, or was the use of the copper restricted to certain class?
 
Margie

--- On Thu, 6/16/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 11:07 AM

 

Interesting the gilded copper, since that was forbidden by law...at least under Edward 4

________________________________
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg

Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)

We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty  ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Again well said!
Paul

On 17 Jun 2011, at 21:15, fayre rose wrote:

> wow! vermeer..just exactly how big is that little muck stirring stick of yours.
> stafford is significantly responsible for putting power into the hands of beaufort/stanley and tudor factions. his betrayal has been downplayed and/or missed by tudor historians.
>
> buckingham was going after the throne. he was using the beaufort/tudors to eliminate the competition, that he himself had not eliminated.
>
> buckingham needed the beauforts and their supporters to pull off his coup d'etat. let them do the muck raking..and then once they had destroyed richard..he could step forward as the rightful heir to both the houses of plantagenet and lancaster. h7's claim was weak, if not void. it was only by survivorship and conquest..as well as his marriage to e4's daughter elizabeth of york that the tudors became more than a blurb in history.
>
> richard's golden ship sank because of the vermin buckingham. the rat gnawed the holes in it..and then the tudors allowed the rodent to drown in its fecal own matter.
>
> one can only ponder how different the world would be had richard survived. the changes he was bringing about to the english laws only offers us a hint of richard's brilliant mind.
>
> do some research on richard the man..not on the legends surrounding him.
> then use your little muck stick to stir up some real truths.
>
> roslyn
> --- On Fri, 6/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> To:
> Received: Friday, June 17, 2011, 10:41 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation - an act of self-preservation against the `would evil' Woodvilles which meant that the princes were probably doomed - and Stafford may've been hoping  in his dreams - to become King himself. I'm not sure why the kingship seemed all that attractive: `the Crown where Death holds court' and when how psychopathic and ultimately sad Henry VIII's life was, but self-interest is a human characteristic.
>
> Incidentally, another of those Boar badges was found recently at Bosworth. If Bosworth was a type of vote on Richard's popularity he certainly lost and no wonder he made what some consider a rash move on Tudor.
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>>
>> I do have to say that when, as a playwright, I deal with Thomas or William
>> Stanley, they end up being very rich material when it comes to
>> characteriizing and creating dialogue for them. Thomas in particular took
>> on a lot of George Sanders in my play.
>>
>> Also, I have say this much about the Stanleys: when an authority figure
>> dealt with the Stanleys, that figure knew exactly where he stood with this
>> clan (unless there was something seriously wrong with the authority figure's
>> mental capacities). Other families or individuals might swear fealty up and
>> down and then strike your heart when they betray you, but the Stanley clan
>> was always very clear: Stanley was for Stanley and Stanley alone. They
>> were honest about that: you could almost unquestioningly count on that.
>> They were a constant in a way that, for example, Henry Stafford, never could
>> be.
>>
>> Maria
>> ejbronte@...
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
>>>
>>> Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as
>>> pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph
>>> Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
>>>
>>> We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty 
>>> ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives
>>> and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas
>>> More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few
>>> examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest
>>> or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at
>>> Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a
>>> connection to Richard III interesting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@>
>>>
>>>> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>>>> To:
>>>> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>>>>
>>>> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists?
>>> Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

We're all quasi-Swiffers, around here...though some more  legit than others, as I'm sure you've noticed. Enjoy! It's well worth the honourable wait, when suddenly the Jewels appear unbidden.  J    ; ) 

You're plenty smart, I wager--just not "crafty" or into playing risky games. We used to say: A person who checks repeatedly  under the bed has probably hidden there, from time to time.... That's how I imagine Henry; "street smart" and foxy (and not in the Jimi Hendrix way!) 


________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 
Thanks, Judy--that makes perfect sense.  I've always said that I'm not smart enough to be a crook, and once again here's a perfect example--I had not thought of deception.
 
The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 
 
Thanks again for the great information--no specific reference needed for me...I'm just being a sponge soaking up the good info for no particular purpose but my own intellectual entertainment. 

Margie

--- On Fri, 6/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Friday, June 17, 2011, 2:58 PM

 

Hi, Margie! It's been a while, but I believe it was a law meant to prevent deception. From ancient times, people have "coated" base metals with gold or silver, hoping to sell their products as pure gold and silver. In one of Edward's laws, this was specifically forbidden. There may have been exceptions, of course, especially for objects honestly labelled as gilt or sheathed. I know very little else; this was one of those tidbits I stumbled upon, unsought, while doing other research. I noted it, but didn't reference...who thought I'd need this, 20 years later?  

For example, I have a note about a salt cellar pawned to a London merchant by Richard, winter of '84, for sixty-some pounds. Described as gilt silver (gold on sterling? vermeil, in our lingo; that would be okay, as the underlying metal is presumably no less than silver) with pearls, a mighty coffer upheld by "blackamoors" which could mean almost any sort of exotic, dark figures - Arabic, Muslim, African, Egyptianate? It was probably quite spectacular...and long since melted down. Sometimes, it's nice to look at one's own jewelry, etc., and ponder: What was this, once? Where did this gold originate? ("We are stardust, We are golden, We are billion year old carbon..." Joni Mitchell, Woodstock).

Judy 

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
Hi Judy:
 
Please forgive my ignorance:  why was the gilded copper forbidden?  Did it have something to do with a guild or trade protection, or was the use of the copper restricted to certain class?
 
Margie

--- On Thu, 6/16/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 11:07 AM

 

Interesting the gilded copper, since that was forbidden by law...at least under Edward 4

________________________________
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg

Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)

We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty  ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

> The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 



Here goes another "I read somewhere..." but wasn't it Edward IV whose coronation had to be delayed until the crown jewels could be redeemed from, essentially, being in hock? And that probably wasn't the only one.

The king had a place to store the regalia when it wasn't being used as security for a loan, but I think other nobles pawned their plate and jewels for lack of a secure place to store them. When they moved from castle to castle or manor to manor, their household goods and furnishings moved with them, or rather ahead of them, in sumpter wagons. Hauling treasure around like that was an invitation to thievery or loss from natural causes. King John lost all the royal regalia when the wagons carrying them were caught in a flood in The Wash. (Were they ever recovered, does anyone know?)

Katy

"vermeertwo" wrote:
>
> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation

Carol responds:

On the contrary, Richard's popularity was at its height, and even had the weather not fought on his side, he would have had no difficulty in quelling Buckingham's rebellion. The Parliament that enacted both Titulus Regius and Richard's reforms came two months *after* Buckingham's execution.

A chronology of events in Richard's life and reign can be found here:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/chronology.html

Things did not start to go downhill for Richard until he learned of his son's death in April 1484.

Carol, noting that not even Dominic Mancini called Richard's assumption of the throne a usurpation (that's a mistranslation of occupatione)

"vermeertwo" wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
>
> Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
>
> We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty – ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
>
Carol responds:

Thanks for the link. Sad that Fitzherbert's effigy is the only remaining one with a white boar pendant, but then Richard had a short reign, and the families of those who died fighting for him would not have dared to put those badges on the effigies (if any) of their loved ones.

Regarding "St." Thomas More: He's only a saint because he was "martyred" in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church because he resisted the idea of a secular monarch displacing the pope as head of the church not for any personal holiness (or access to truth) he possessed, Too bad his sainthood, as well as his colorful writing style, have led so many people to mistake his "Historie" for history.

Carol, noting that Henry VII had more to do with villainizing Richard than Henry VIII did

Hi Carol:
 
What a great link!
 
Thanks,
 
Margie

--- On Sun, 6/19/11, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: "sinking boat" (Was: Tomb of Thomas Stanley)
To:
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 2:58 PM


 



"vermeertwo" wrote:
>
> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III: most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular after his usurpation

Carol responds:

On the contrary, Richard's popularity was at its height, and even had the weather not fought on his side, he would have had no difficulty in quelling Buckingham's rebellion. The Parliament that enacted both Titulus Regius and Richard's reforms came two months *after* Buckingham's execution.

A chronology of events in Richard's life and reign can be found here:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/chronology.html

Things did not start to go downhill for Richard until he learned of his son's death in April 1484.

Carol, noting that not even Dominic Mancini called Richard's assumption of the throne a usurpation (that's a mistranslation of occupatione)

I'm not exactly sure what the Jimi Hendrix way is, but I'll certainly agree anyway.... ;)

--- On Sat, 6/18/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 12:51 PM


 



We're all quasi-Swiffers, around here...though some more  legit than others, as I'm sure you've noticed. Enjoy! It's well worth the honourable wait, when suddenly the Jewels appear unbidden.  J    ; ) 

You're plenty smart, I wager--just not "crafty" or into playing risky games. We used to say: A person who checks repeatedly  under the bed has probably hidden there, from time to time.... That's how I imagine Henry; "street smart" and foxy (and not in the Jimi Hendrix way!) 

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
Thanks, Judy--that makes perfect sense.  I've always said that I'm not smart enough to be a crook, and once again here's a perfect example--I had not thought of deception.
 
The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 
 
Thanks again for the great information--no specific reference needed for me...I'm just being a sponge soaking up the good info for no particular purpose but my own intellectual entertainment. 

Margie

--- On Fri, 6/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Friday, June 17, 2011, 2:58 PM

 

Hi, Margie! It's been a while, but I believe it was a law meant to prevent deception. From ancient times, people have "coated" base metals with gold or silver, hoping to sell their products as pure gold and silver. In one of Edward's laws, this was specifically forbidden. There may have been exceptions, of course, especially for objects honestly labelled as gilt or sheathed. I know very little else; this was one of those tidbits I stumbled upon, unsought, while doing other research. I noted it, but didn't reference...who thought I'd need this, 20 years later?  

For example, I have a note about a salt cellar pawned to a London merchant by Richard, winter of '84, for sixty-some pounds. Described as gilt silver (gold on sterling? vermeil, in our lingo; that would be okay, as the underlying metal is presumably no less than silver) with pearls, a mighty coffer upheld by "blackamoors" which could mean almost any sort of exotic, dark figures - Arabic, Muslim, African, Egyptianate? It was probably quite spectacular...and long since melted down. Sometimes, it's nice to look at one's own jewelry, etc., and ponder: What was this, once? Where did this gold originate? ("We are stardust, We are golden, We are billion year old carbon..." Joni Mitchell, Woodstock).

Judy 

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
Hi Judy:
 
Please forgive my ignorance:  why was the gilded copper forbidden?  Did it have something to do with a guild or trade protection, or was the use of the copper restricted to certain class?
 
Margie

--- On Thu, 6/16/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 11:07 AM

 

Interesting the gilded copper, since that was forbidden by law...at least under Edward 4

________________________________
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg

Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)

We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty  ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I know over in my other discussion group there was much recent discussion as to the right of the royalty to 'hock' the jewels as they were, properly, the property of the realm and not the actual person.  Of course, in that discussion, the time period discussed was Victorian, certainly not the time of Edward IV.  Safe to assume that in Edward's period, what was the property of the 'realm', was the property of the king to do with as he saw fit?

--- On Sat, 6/18/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:


From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 3:14 PM


 





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

> The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 

Here goes another "I read somewhere..." but wasn't it Edward IV whose coronation had to be delayed until the crown jewels could be redeemed from, essentially, being in hock? And that probably wasn't the only one.

The king had a place to store the regalia when it wasn't being used as security for a loan, but I think other nobles pawned their plate and jewels for lack of a secure place to store them. When they moved from castle to castle or manor to manor, their household goods and furnishings moved with them, or rather ahead of them, in sumpter wagons. Hauling treasure around like that was an invitation to thievery or loss from natural causes. King John lost all the royal regalia when the wagons carrying them were caught in a flood in The Wash. (Were they ever recovered, does anyone know?)

Katy

"Foxy Lady" ; )


________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 
I'm not exactly sure what the Jimi Hendrix way is, but I'll certainly agree anyway.... ;)

--- On Sat, 6/18/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 12:51 PM

 

We're all quasi-Swiffers, around here...though some more  legit than others, as I'm sure you've noticed. Enjoy! It's well worth the honourable wait, when suddenly the Jewels appear unbidden.  J    ; ) 

You're plenty smart, I wager--just not "crafty" or into playing risky games. We used to say: A person who checks repeatedly  under the bed has probably hidden there, from time to time.... That's how I imagine Henry; "street smart" and foxy (and not in the Jimi Hendrix way!) 

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
Thanks, Judy--that makes perfect sense.  I've always said that I'm not smart enough to be a crook, and once again here's a perfect example--I had not thought of deception.
 
The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 
 
Thanks again for the great information--no specific reference needed for me...I'm just being a sponge soaking up the good info for no particular purpose but my own intellectual entertainment. 

Margie

--- On Fri, 6/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Friday, June 17, 2011, 2:58 PM

 

Hi, Margie! It's been a while, but I believe it was a law meant to prevent deception. From ancient times, people have "coated" base metals with gold or silver, hoping to sell their products as pure gold and silver. In one of Edward's laws, this was specifically forbidden. There may have been exceptions, of course, especially for objects honestly labelled as gilt or sheathed. I know very little else; this was one of those tidbits I stumbled upon, unsought, while doing other research. I noted it, but didn't reference...who thought I'd need this, 20 years later?  

For example, I have a note about a salt cellar pawned to a London merchant by Richard, winter of '84, for sixty-some pounds. Described as gilt silver (gold on sterling? vermeil, in our lingo; that would be okay, as the underlying metal is presumably no less than silver) with pearls, a mighty coffer upheld by "blackamoors" which could mean almost any sort of exotic, dark figures - Arabic, Muslim, African, Egyptianate? It was probably quite spectacular...and long since melted down. Sometimes, it's nice to look at one's own jewelry, etc., and ponder: What was this, once? Where did this gold originate? ("We are stardust, We are golden, We are billion year old carbon..." Joni Mitchell, Woodstock).

Judy 

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
Hi Judy:
 
Please forgive my ignorance:  why was the gilded copper forbidden?  Did it have something to do with a guild or trade protection, or was the use of the copper restricted to certain class?
 
Margie

--- On Thu, 6/16/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 11:07 AM

 

Interesting the gilded copper, since that was forbidden by law...at least under Edward 4

________________________________
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg

Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)

We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty  ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Like the current Crown Jewels (or Oscar-night loaners from Harry Winston), there were probably jewels and Jewels....


________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 
I know over in my other discussion group there was much recent discussion as to the right of the royalty to 'hock' the jewels as they were, properly, the property of the realm and not the actual person.  Of course, in that discussion, the time period discussed was Victorian, certainly not the time of Edward IV.  Safe to assume that in Edward's period, what was the property of the 'realm', was the property of the king to do with as he saw fit?

--- On Sat, 6/18/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 3:14 PM

 

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

> The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 

Here goes another "I read somewhere..." but wasn't it Edward IV whose coronation had to be delayed until the crown jewels could be redeemed from, essentially, being in hock? And that probably wasn't the only one.

The king had a place to store the regalia when it wasn't being used as security for a loan, but I think other nobles pawned their plate and jewels for lack of a secure place to store them. When they moved from castle to castle or manor to manor, their household goods and furnishings moved with them, or rather ahead of them, in sumpter wagons. Hauling treasure around like that was an invitation to thievery or loss from natural causes. King John lost all the royal regalia when the wagons carrying them were caught in a flood in The Wash. (Were they ever recovered, does anyone know?)

Katy

Edward III hawked the jewels a time or two.





________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 7:08:54 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


Like the current Crown Jewels (or Oscar-night loaners from Harry Winston), there
were probably jewels and Jewels....

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


I know over in my other discussion group there was much recent discussion as to
the right of the royalty to 'hock' the jewels as they were, properly, the
property of the realm and not the actual person. Of course, in that discussion,
the time period discussed was Victorian, certainly not the time of Edward IV.
Safe to assume that in Edward's period, what was the property of the 'realm',
was the property of the king to do with as he saw fit?

--- On Sat, 6/18/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 3:14 PM



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

> The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this
>'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt
>cellar...remarkable. And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a
>simple item. Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly
>have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'.Â
>

Here goes another "I read somewhere..." but wasn't it Edward IV whose coronation
had to be delayed until the crown jewels could be redeemed from, essentially,
being in hock? And that probably wasn't the only one.

The king had a place to store the regalia when it wasn't being used as security
for a loan, but I think other nobles pawned their plate and jewels for lack of a
secure place to store them. When they moved from castle to castle or manor to
manor, their household goods and furnishings moved with them, or rather ahead of
them, in sumpter wagons. Hauling treasure around like that was an invitation to
thievery or loss from natural causes. King John lost all the royal regalia when
the wagons carrying them were caught in a flood in The Wash. (Were they ever
recovered, does anyone know?)

Katy

I think it likely that both the Stanley action (or lack thereof) and Richard's
charge came about as a direct result of the death of Norfolk on the field. Also
it was clear that Northumberland couldn't (or wouldn't) do anything. I think
that if the tide had run in Richard's favour (death of Oxford, capture of Henry,
engagement by Northumberland or some other significant event), the Stanleys
would have backed Richard. Self interest rather than a question of popularity
was more likely the deciding factor. Whether or not Richard was popular must be
weighed against whether or not there was overall support for a relatively
unknown entity (Henry). And let us not forget that the Stanleys were not
particularly loyal to Henry in the years that followed.




________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 5:52:11 PM
Subject: Re: chronology link


Hi Carol:

What a great link!

Thanks,

Margie

--- On Sun, 6/19/11, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: "sinking boat" (Was: Tomb of Thomas
Stanley)
To:
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 2:58 PM



"vermeertwo" wrote:
>
> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III:
>most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular
>after his usurpation
>

Carol responds:

On the contrary, Richard's popularity was at its height, and even had the
weather not fought on his side, he would have had no difficulty in quelling
Buckingham's rebellion. The Parliament that enacted both Titulus Regius and
Richard's reforms came two months *after* Buckingham's execution.

A chronology of events in Richard's life and reign can be found here:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/chronology.html

Things did not start to go downhill for Richard until he learned of his son's
death in April 1484.

Carol, noting that not even Dominic Mancini called Richard's assumption of the
throne a usurpation (that's a mistranslation of occupatione)

Here is a brilliant saltcellar for you to gaze at, Margie.
http://www.slate.com/id/2083452/

I don't want one, but it is fascinating.
Sheffe




>________________________________
>From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 7:39 PM
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
>
> 
>Thanks, Judy--that makes perfect sense.  I've always said that I'm not smart enough to be a crook, and once again here's a perfect example--I had not thought of deception.
> 
>The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 
> 
>Thanks again for the great information--no specific reference needed for me...I'm just being a sponge soaking up the good info for no particular purpose but my own intellectual entertainment. 
>
>Margie
>
>--- On Fri, 6/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>To: "" <>
>Date: Friday, June 17, 2011, 2:58 PM
>
> 
>
>Hi, Margie! It's been a while, but I believe it was a law meant to prevent deception. From ancient times, people have "coated" base metals with gold or silver, hoping to sell their products as pure gold and silver. In one of Edward's laws, this was specifically forbidden. There may have been exceptions, of course, especially for objects honestly labelled as gilt or sheathed. I know very little else; this was one of those tidbits I stumbled upon, unsought, while doing other research. I noted it, but didn't reference...who thought I'd need this, 20 years later?  
>
>For example, I have a note about a salt cellar pawned to a London merchant by Richard, winter of '84, for sixty-some pounds. Described as gilt silver (gold on sterling? vermeil, in our lingo; that would be okay, as the underlying metal is presumably no less than silver) with pearls, a mighty coffer upheld by "blackamoors" which could mean almost any sort of exotic, dark figures - Arabic, Muslim, African, Egyptianate? It was probably quite spectacular...and long since melted down. Sometimes, it's nice to look at one's own jewelry, etc., and ponder: What was this, once? Where did this gold originate? ("We are stardust, We are golden, We are billion year old carbon..." Joni Mitchell, Woodstock).
>
>Judy 
>
>________________________________
>From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:18 PM
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> 
>Hi Judy:
> 
>Please forgive my ignorance:  why was the gilded copper forbidden?  Did it have something to do with a guild or trade protection, or was the use of the copper restricted to certain class?
> 
>Margie
>
>--- On Thu, 6/16/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>To: "" <>
>Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 11:07 AM
>
> 
>
>Interesting the gilded copper, since that was forbidden by law...at least under Edward 4
>
>________________________________
>From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:33 AM
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
>
>Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
>
>We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty  ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
>
>--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>>
>> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
>> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>> To:
>> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>>
>> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is fascinating... immediately becomes the stuff of a great novel...the too-easy theft, the 'fencing' among the inordinately rich collectors who never tell what they really have, the brilliant spy-sort sent to recover it, traveling around the world as one clue leads to another.... 
 
*big sigh*
 
Great fun!
 
Thanks for sharing it with me....
 
Margie

--- On Sun, 6/19/11, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:


From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 7:57 PM


 



Here is a brilliant saltcellar for you to gaze at, Margie.
http://www.slate.com/id/2083452/

I don't want one, but it is fascinating.
Sheffe

>________________________________
>From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 7:39 PM
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
>
> 
>Thanks, Judy--that makes perfect sense.  I've always said that I'm not smart enough to be a crook, and once again here's a perfect example--I had not thought of deception.
> 
>The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 
> 
>Thanks again for the great information--no specific reference needed for me...I'm just being a sponge soaking up the good info for no particular purpose but my own intellectual entertainment. 
>
>Margie
>
>--- On Fri, 6/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>To: "" <>
>Date: Friday, June 17, 2011, 2:58 PM
>
> 
>
>Hi, Margie! It's been a while, but I believe it was a law meant to prevent deception. From ancient times, people have "coated" base metals with gold or silver, hoping to sell their products as pure gold and silver. In one of Edward's laws, this was specifically forbidden. There may have been exceptions, of course, especially for objects honestly labelled as gilt or sheathed. I know very little else; this was one of those tidbits I stumbled upon, unsought, while doing other research. I noted it, but didn't reference...who thought I'd need this, 20 years later?  
>
>For example, I have a note about a salt cellar pawned to a London merchant by Richard, winter of '84, for sixty-some pounds. Described as gilt silver (gold on sterling? vermeil, in our lingo; that would be okay, as the underlying metal is presumably no less than silver) with pearls, a mighty coffer upheld by "blackamoors" which could mean almost any sort of exotic, dark figures - Arabic, Muslim, African, Egyptianate? It was probably quite spectacular...and long since melted down. Sometimes, it's nice to look at one's own jewelry, etc., and ponder: What was this, once? Where did this gold originate? ("We are stardust, We are golden, We are billion year old carbon..." Joni Mitchell, Woodstock).
>
>Judy 
>
>________________________________
>From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:18 PM
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> 
>Hi Judy:
> 
>Please forgive my ignorance:  why was the gilded copper forbidden?  Did it have something to do with a guild or trade protection, or was the use of the copper restricted to certain class?
> 
>Margie
>
>--- On Thu, 6/16/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>To: "" <>
>Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 11:07 AM
>
> 
>
>Interesting the gilded copper, since that was forbidden by law...at least under Edward 4
>
>________________________________
>From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:33 AM
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Boar_Pendant_Norbury_Church.jpg
>
>Thought you might enjoy this link to the white boar badge of Richard III as pendant to a Yorkist livery collar on the tomb monument of Sir Ralph Fitzherbert (died 1483.)
>
>We know Richard was villainized after his death by the Tudor dynasty  ironic coming from Henry VIII, a complete psychopath who decapitated wives and able ministers at a whim: Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, St. Thomas More, and Cromwell - that followed his brief reign, so there were only a few examples that survived. A number of metal badges, for pinning to the chest or a hat, survived in gilded copper, lead and silver, the last found at Richard's home of Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
>
>--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>>
>> You are right, not a popular man, but I find anything that has a connection to Richard III interesting
>>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
>> Subject: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>> To:
>> Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 8:03 AM
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>>
>> Anyone seen the above tomb at Ormskirk church, for it still exists? Probably not a popular man on the Richard III Society website.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Aaah...of course!

--- On Sun, 6/19/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To: "" <>
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 6:08 PM


 



Like the current Crown Jewels (or Oscar-night loaners from Harry Winston), there were probably jewels and Jewels....

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
I know over in my other discussion group there was much recent discussion as to the right of the royalty to 'hock' the jewels as they were, properly, the property of the realm and not the actual person.  Of course, in that discussion, the time period discussed was Victorian, certainly not the time of Edward IV.  Safe to assume that in Edward's period, what was the property of the 'realm', was the property of the king to do with as he saw fit?

--- On Sat, 6/18/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 3:14 PM

 

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

> The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this 'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt cellar...remarkable.  And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a simple item.  Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'. 

Here goes another "I read somewhere..." but wasn't it Edward IV whose coronation had to be delayed until the crown jewels could be redeemed from, essentially, being in hock? And that probably wasn't the only one.

The king had a place to store the regalia when it wasn't being used as security for a loan, but I think other nobles pawned their plate and jewels for lack of a secure place to store them. When they moved from castle to castle or manor to manor, their household goods and furnishings moved with them, or rather ahead of them, in sumpter wagons. Hauling treasure around like that was an invitation to thievery or loss from natural causes. King John lost all the royal regalia when the wagons carrying them were caught in a flood in The Wash. (Were they ever recovered, does anyone know?)

Katy

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> It is fascinating... immediately becomes the stuff of a great novel...the too-easy theft, the 'fencing' among the inordinately rich collectors who never tell what they really have, the brilliant spy-sort sent to recover it, traveling around the world as one clue leads to another.... 
>  
> *big sigh*
>  
> Great fun!
>  
> Thanks for sharing it with me....
>  
> Margie


Stir in the fact that many (most?) of the bankers and lenders-on-security were Jews because in many places Jews were not allowed to own property. They were in a dangerous quandry, because of the risk that the very people who came to them to borrow money could turn on them because they resented having to pay interest, or that their property was in the hands of non-Christians. It's a very interesting aspect of the Middle Ages that rarely comes up in historical novels.

Katy

And a huge number were melted down or sold off to help pay for the Civil War. 
One notable exception (which was on tv in David Dimbleby's version of the Seven
Ages of Britain) was what may be Anne of Bohemia's crown.  This  went to Germany
as part of a dowry for Henry Iv's daughter.  It really is the most stunningly
beautiful piece - far better than the current Crown Jewels  .  It's the oldest
surviving English crown.


http://www.residenz-muenchen.de/englisch/treasury/pic11.htm


________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 June, 2011 1:36:55
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 
Edward III hawked the jewels a time or two.

________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 7:08:54 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

Like the current Crown Jewels (or Oscar-night loaners from Harry Winston), there

were probably jewels and Jewels....

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

I know over in my other discussion group there was much recent discussion as to
the right of the royalty to 'hock' the jewels as they were, properly, the
property of the realm and not the actual person. Of course, in that discussion,
the time period discussed was Victorian, certainly not the time of Edward IV.
Safe to assume that in Edward's period, what was the property of the 'realm',
was the property of the king to do with as he saw fit?

--- On Sat, 6/18/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 3:14 PM

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

> The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this
>'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt
>cellar...remarkable. And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a
>simple item. Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly

>have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'.Â
>

Here goes another "I read somewhere..." but wasn't it Edward IV whose coronation

had to be delayed until the crown jewels could be redeemed from, essentially,
being in hock? And that probably wasn't the only one.

The king had a place to store the regalia when it wasn't being used as security
for a loan, but I think other nobles pawned their plate and jewels for lack of a

secure place to store them. When they moved from castle to castle or manor to
manor, their household goods and furnishings moved with them, or rather ahead of

them, in sumpter wagons. Hauling treasure around like that was an invitation to
thievery or loss from natural causes. King John lost all the royal regalia when
the wagons carrying them were caught in a flood in The Wash. (Were they ever
recovered, does anyone know?)

Katy

Wow.  That's pretty.  And it even looks like it might not give the wearer a neck injury.
Sheffe




>________________________________
>From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:06 AM
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
>
> 
>And a huge number were melted down or sold off to help pay for the Civil War. 
>One notable exception (which was on tv in David Dimbleby's version of the Seven
>Ages of Britain) was what may be Anne of Bohemia's crown.  This  went to Germany
>as part of a dowry for Henry Iv's daughter.  It really is the most stunningly
>beautiful piece - far better than the current Crown Jewels  .  It's the oldest
>surviving English crown.
>
>http://www.residenz-muenchen.de/englisch/treasury/pic11.htm
>
>________________________________
>From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 20 June, 2011 1:36:55
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
> 
>Edward III hawked the jewels a time or two.
>
>________________________________
>From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>To: ""
><>
>Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 7:08:54 PM
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
>Like the current Crown Jewels (or Oscar-night loaners from Harry Winston), there
>
>were probably jewels and Jewels....
>
>________________________________
>From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 4:57 PM
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>
>I know over in my other discussion group there was much recent discussion as to
>the right of the royalty to 'hock' the jewels as they were, properly, the
>property of the realm and not the actual person. Of course, in that discussion,
>the time period discussed was Victorian, certainly not the time of Edward IV.
>Safe to assume that in Edward's period, what was the property of the 'realm',
>was the property of the king to do with as he saw fit?
>
>--- On Sat, 6/18/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
>Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
>To:
>Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 3:14 PM
>
>--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
>wrote:
>
>> The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this
>>'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt
>>cellar...remarkable. And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a
>>simple item. Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly
>
>>have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'.Â
>>
>
>Here goes another "I read somewhere..." but wasn't it Edward IV whose coronation
>
>had to be delayed until the crown jewels could be redeemed from, essentially,
>being in hock? And that probably wasn't the only one.
>
>The king had a place to store the regalia when it wasn't being used as security
>for a loan, but I think other nobles pawned their plate and jewels for lack of a
>
>secure place to store them. When they moved from castle to castle or manor to
>manor, their household goods and furnishings moved with them, or rather ahead of
>
>them, in sumpter wagons. Hauling treasure around like that was an invitation to
>thievery or loss from natural causes. King John lost all the royal regalia when
>the wagons carrying them were caught in a flood in The Wash. (Were they ever
>recovered, does anyone know?)
>
>Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Bill! Good to "see you" back. I've been adrift withouten thee...  Judy


________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 
Edward III hawked the jewels a time or two.

________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 7:08:54 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

Like the current Crown Jewels (or Oscar-night loaners from Harry Winston), there
were probably jewels and Jewels....

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

I know over in my other discussion group there was much recent discussion as to
the right of the royalty to 'hock' the jewels as they were, properly, the
property of the realm and not the actual person. Of course, in that discussion,
the time period discussed was Victorian, certainly not the time of Edward IV.
Safe to assume that in Edward's period, what was the property of the 'realm',
was the property of the king to do with as he saw fit?

--- On Sat, 6/18/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 3:14 PM

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

> The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this
>'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt
>cellar...remarkable. And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a
>simple item. Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly
>have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'.Â
>

Here goes another "I read somewhere..." but wasn't it Edward IV whose coronation
had to be delayed until the crown jewels could be redeemed from, essentially,
being in hock? And that probably wasn't the only one.

The king had a place to store the regalia when it wasn't being used as security
for a loan, but I think other nobles pawned their plate and jewels for lack of a
secure place to store them. When they moved from castle to castle or manor to
manor, their household goods and furnishings moved with them, or rather ahead of
them, in sumpter wagons. Hauling treasure around like that was an invitation to
thievery or loss from natural causes. King John lost all the royal regalia when
the wagons carrying them were caught in a flood in The Wash. (Were they ever
recovered, does anyone know?)

Katy

Hi there, Judy.




________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 12:33:01 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


Hi, Bill! Good to "see you" back. I've been adrift withouten thee... Judy

________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


Edward III hawked the jewels a time or two.

________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 7:08:54 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

Like the current Crown Jewels (or Oscar-night loaners from Harry Winston), there

were probably jewels and Jewels....

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

I know over in my other discussion group there was much recent discussion as to
the right of the royalty to 'hock' the jewels as they were, properly, the
property of the realm and not the actual person. Of course, in that discussion,

the time period discussed was Victorian, certainly not the time of Edward IV.
Safe to assume that in Edward's period, what was the property of the 'realm',
was the property of the king to do with as he saw fit?

--- On Sat, 6/18/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley
To:
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2011, 3:14 PM

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

> The story of the salt cellar is one of those little jewels that makes this
>'work' so much fun..to imagine the KING OF ENGLAND pawning his salt
>cellar...remarkable. And to think of such craftsmanship and value in such a
>simple item. Surely, I am descendant from the poor working serf for I honestly
>
>have trouble imaging such a piece of 'tableware'.Â
>

Here goes another "I read somewhere..." but wasn't it Edward IV whose coronation

had to be delayed until the crown jewels could be redeemed from, essentially,
being in hock? And that probably wasn't the only one.

The king had a place to store the regalia when it wasn't being used as security
for a loan, but I think other nobles pawned their plate and jewels for lack of a

secure place to store them. When they moved from castle to castle or manor to
manor, their household goods and furnishings moved with them, or rather ahead of

them, in sumpter wagons. Hauling treasure around like that was an invitation to
thievery or loss from natural causes. King John lost all the royal regalia when
the wagons carrying them were caught in a flood in The Wash. (Were they ever
recovered, does anyone know?)

Katy

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>> One notable exception (which was on tv in David Dimbleby's version of the Seven
> Ages of Britain) was what may be Anne of Bohemia's crown.  This  went to Germany
> as part of a dowry for Henry Iv's daughter.  It really is the most stunningly
> beautiful piece - far better than the current Crown Jewels  . 

I have been lucky enough to see this crown twice during my current life - it's hard to exaggerate its beauty. It's simply jaw-dropping, and when you realise that it was just one of many pieces that would have been on display on formal occasions such as Easter and Christmas, some understanding is gained of the dazzling displays put on at the medieval English court.

On the subject of the Stanley brothers, I have somewhere an analysis of the lands given to William Stanley by Richard III. Suffice it to say that rarely in our history can such generous rewards have prompted so little loyalty in return.

Brian W

I'm taking it on, but not in the detail it deserves, Kay. Still, better some than none.


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 


--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> It is fascinating... immediately becomes the stuff of a great novel...the too-easy theft, the 'fencing' among the inordinately rich collectors who never tell what they really have, the brilliant spy-sort sent to recover it, traveling around the world as one clue leads to another.... 
>  
> *big sigh*
>  
> Great fun!
>  
> Thanks for sharing it with me....
>  
> Margie

Stir in the fact that many (most?) of the bankers and lenders-on-security were Jews because in many places Jews were not allowed to own property. They were in a dangerous quandry, because of the risk that the very people who came to them to borrow money could turn on them because they resented having to pay interest, or that their property was in the hands of non-Christians. It's a very interesting aspect of the Middle Ages that rarely comes up in historical novels.

Katy

Well put, Bill.

Meet me, later, in the DMZ. "Richard" and I miss the daily Funnies...and the B.O.A.R.s ask of you.

Judy




________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re: chronology link


 
I think it likely that both the Stanley action (or lack thereof) and Richard's
charge came about as a direct result of the death of Norfolk on the field. Also
it was clear that Northumberland couldn't (or wouldn't) do anything. I think
that if the tide had run in Richard's favour (death of Oxford, capture of Henry,
engagement by Northumberland or some other significant event), the Stanleys
would have backed Richard. Self interest rather than a question of popularity
was more likely the deciding factor. Whether or not Richard was popular must be
weighed against whether or not there was overall support for a relatively
unknown entity (Henry). And let us not forget that the Stanleys were not
particularly loyal to Henry in the years that followed.

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 5:52:11 PM
Subject: Re: chronology link

Hi Carol:

What a great link!

Thanks,

Margie

--- On Sun, 6/19/11, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: "sinking boat" (Was: Tomb of Thomas
Stanley)
To:
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 2:58 PM

"vermeertwo" wrote:
>
> I think Stafford was probably leaving a sinking boat in betraying Richard III:
>most contemporary chronicles suggest that Richard III wasn't immensely popular
>after his usurpation
>

Carol responds:

On the contrary, Richard's popularity was at its height, and even had the
weather not fought on his side, he would have had no difficulty in quelling
Buckingham's rebellion. The Parliament that enacted both Titulus Regius and
Richard's reforms came two months *after* Buckingham's execution.

A chronology of events in Richard's life and reign can be found here:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/chronology.html

Things did not start to go downhill for Richard until he learned of his son's
death in April 1484.

Carol, noting that not even Dominic Mancini called Richard's assumption of the
throne a usurpation (that's a mistranslation of occupatione)

How wonderful but I am intrigued by your "current life" - did you see it in any
past lives as well?  :-)




________________________________
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 June, 2011 17:59:14
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

 


--- In , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>> One notable exception (which was on tv in David Dimbleby's version of the Seven
>>
> Ages of Britain) was what may be Anne of Bohemia's crown.  This  went to
>Germany
>
> as part of a dowry for Henry Iv's daughter.  It really is the most stunningly

> beautiful piece - far better than the current Crown Jewels  . 

I have been lucky enough to see this crown twice during my current life - it's
hard to exaggerate its beauty. It's simply jaw-dropping, and when you realise
that it was just one of many pieces that would have been on display on formal
occasions such as Easter and Christmas, some understanding is gained of the
dazzling displays put on at the medieval English court.

On the subject of the Stanley brothers, I have somewhere an analysis of the
lands given to William Stanley by Richard III. Suffice it to say that rarely in
our history can such generous rewards have prompted so little loyalty in return.

Brian W

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> How wonderful but I am intrigued by your "current life" - did you see it in any
> past lives as well?  :-)
>

I'm a believer in reincarnation - although I have no conscious memory of any life before this one (and my memories start at 18 months old!). I think it explains my obsessive interest in particular eras and individuals. However 'tis probably just a delusion, the result of too much ale supped in youth and not enough scientific mentality. Stephen Hawkin would crow with laughter, but I go for the 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in thy philosophy' line.

I'm too scared to go for the hypnotism gig, though I've had several offers.

Brian W

Dear Brian,

Try the hypnosis. You've no reason to fear, as they can't pull a Svengali...

I, too, feel this way; I've "lived" in 15th C. since early childhood, when I asked for Christmas: a suit of armour and a harp. Clearly I wasn't female. Also, a telescope. Only this year, have my desires been fulfilled. The armour is repro but High Gothic...and still on its way here. The telescope is a free year's worth of viewing, Online, and the harp is from the EMS, London; 19 strings and perfect for a klutz like me. 

Also, my husband bought me a Gothic dress from EBay +Ukraine for our upcoming 29th Anniversary, so if the armour is delayed too long, I shan't be w/o backup. i had already made the belt, purse, etc.

Also dream of Florence in early 1500s; France and/or Russia in late 18th-early 19th centuries...China in 1890s...? the '30s in northern California, the '40s back in England. Whatever. I may just have a vivid dreamlife....

Love,
Judy 


________________________________
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> How wonderful but I am intrigued by your "current life" - did you see it in any
> past lives as well?  :-)
>

I'm a believer in reincarnation - although I have no conscious memory of any life before this one (and my memories start at 18 months old!). I think it explains my obsessive interest in particular eras and individuals. However 'tis probably just a delusion, the result of too much ale supped in youth and not enough scientific mentality. Stephen Hawkin would crow with laughter, but I go for the 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in thy philosophy' line.

I'm too scared to go for the hypnotism gig, though I've had several offers.

Brian W

I don't strictly believe in reincarnation, but don't discount it; my feeling
is that, if there is such a thing as past lives, it might account not only
interests but for phobias, too.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Brian <wainwright.brian@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > How wonderful but I am intrigued by your "current life" - did you see it
> in any
> > past lives as well?ý :-)
> >
>
> I'm a believer in reincarnation - although I have no conscious memory of
> any life before this one (and my memories start at 18 months old!). I think
> it explains my obsessive interest in particular eras and individuals.
> However 'tis probably just a delusion, the result of too much ale supped in
> youth and not enough scientific mentality. Stephen Hawkin would crow with
> laughter, but I go for the 'there are more things in heaven and earth than
> are dreamt of in thy philosophy' line.
>
> I'm too scared to go for the hypnotism gig, though I've had several offers.
>
> Brian W
>
>
>

Jeanne d'Arc - lived in C15, was female and wore armour.

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley



Dear Brian,

Try the hypnosis. You've no reason to fear, as they can't pull a Svengali...

I, too, feel this way; I've "lived" in 15th C. since early childhood, when I asked for Christmas: a suit of armour and a harp. Clearly I wasn't female. Also, a telescope. Only this year, have my desires been fulfilled. The armour is repro but High Gothic...and still on its way here. The telescope is a free year's worth of viewing, Online, and the harp is from the EMS, London; 19 strings and perfect for a klutz like me.

Also, my husband bought me a Gothic dress from EBay +Ukraine for our upcoming 29th Anniversary, so if the armour is delayed too long, I shan't be w/o backup. i had already made the belt, purse, etc.

Also dream of Florence in early 1500s; France and/or Russia in late 18th-early 19th centuries...China in 1890s...? the '30s in northern California, the '40s back in England. Whatever. I may just have a vivid dreamlife....

Love,
Judy

________________________________
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley



--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> How wonderful but I am intrigued by your "current life" - did you see it in any
> past lives as well? :-)
>

I'm a believer in reincarnation - although I have no conscious memory of any life before this one (and my memories start at 18 months old!). I think it explains my obsessive interest in particular eras and individuals. However 'tis probably just a delusion, the result of too much ale supped in youth and not enough scientific mentality. Stephen Hawkin would crow with laughter, but I go for the 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in thy philosophy' line.

I'm too scared to go for the hypnotism gig, though I've had several offers.

Brian W

This is true, but I never thought myself the saintly sort.  ; ) Funny, but when I first heard/read her story, I thought she was odd for a girl, w/o really thinking overmuch about my own wish for armour being strange.

Maybe because the girl I actually was didn't want the armour for me, if that makes sense?...and I wasn't otherwise tom-boyish; I liked my dolls, their pretty clothes, etc. Just one of those things....


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley


 
Jeanne d'Arc - lived in C15, was female and wore armour.

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

Dear Brian,

Try the hypnosis. You've no reason to fear, as they can't pull a Svengali...

I, too, feel this way; I've "lived" in 15th C. since early childhood, when I asked for Christmas: a suit of armour and a harp. Clearly I wasn't female. Also, a telescope. Only this year, have my desires been fulfilled. The armour is repro but High Gothic...and still on its way here. The telescope is a free year's worth of viewing, Online, and the harp is from the EMS, London; 19 strings and perfect for a klutz like me.

Also, my husband bought me a Gothic dress from EBay +Ukraine for our upcoming 29th Anniversary, so if the armour is delayed too long, I shan't be w/o backup. i had already made the belt, purse, etc.

Also dream of Florence in early 1500s; France and/or Russia in late 18th-early 19th centuries...China in 1890s...? the '30s in northern California, the '40s back in England. Whatever. I may just have a vivid dreamlife....

Love,
Judy

________________________________
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Thomas Stanley

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> How wonderful but I am intrigued by your "current life" - did you see it in any
> past lives as well? :-)
>

I'm a believer in reincarnation - although I have no conscious memory of any life before this one (and my memories start at 18 months old!). I think it explains my obsessive interest in particular eras and individuals. However 'tis probably just a delusion, the result of too much ale supped in youth and not enough scientific mentality. Stephen Hawkin would crow with laughter, but I go for the 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in thy philosophy' line.

I'm too scared to go for the hypnotism gig, though I've had several offers.

Brian W