Re: Causes of death
Re: Causes of death
2012-09-22 17:40:24
Dear Annette,
> agreed, no one knows what caused Queen Anne Neville's death, any
> more than they know what caused Edward IV's death. But the anti-
> Richard Crowland chronicler decided the former was poisoning (no
> facts adduced in substantiation), whereas the latter was some
> mystery disease. It is no less valid to reverse these
> possibilities, as long as one puts up supporting arguments.
But that's not the same as alleging a *specific disease* re: Anne
(when no-one ever described any symptoms) and sometimes without even
a prefatory "possibly". Equally, I wouldn't allege poisoning about
Edward IV without having more substantial grounds for doing so. (It's
interesting that the Medici Project investigated some members of the
family who were alleged to have been poisoned... only to find, from
the remains, that they had, in fact, died of malaria due to their
unfortunate habit of going hunting in marshland in mosquito season.)
There's equally no reason (as some have done) to claim that Edward of
Middleham may have been poisoned, which no-one claimed at the time.
It worries me that speculation ends up being piled on speculation,
and random accusations being tossed around against other characters
with no more (or even less) evidence than for some of the ones made
against Richard.
best wishes,
Marianne
> agreed, no one knows what caused Queen Anne Neville's death, any
> more than they know what caused Edward IV's death. But the anti-
> Richard Crowland chronicler decided the former was poisoning (no
> facts adduced in substantiation), whereas the latter was some
> mystery disease. It is no less valid to reverse these
> possibilities, as long as one puts up supporting arguments.
But that's not the same as alleging a *specific disease* re: Anne
(when no-one ever described any symptoms) and sometimes without even
a prefatory "possibly". Equally, I wouldn't allege poisoning about
Edward IV without having more substantial grounds for doing so. (It's
interesting that the Medici Project investigated some members of the
family who were alleged to have been poisoned... only to find, from
the remains, that they had, in fact, died of malaria due to their
unfortunate habit of going hunting in marshland in mosquito season.)
There's equally no reason (as some have done) to claim that Edward of
Middleham may have been poisoned, which no-one claimed at the time.
It worries me that speculation ends up being piled on speculation,
and random accusations being tossed around against other characters
with no more (or even less) evidence than for some of the ones made
against Richard.
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: Causes of death
2012-09-22 17:48:40
This is something that bothers me a good deal, as well.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:40:19 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Causes of death
It worries me that speculation ends up being piled on speculation,
and random accusations being tossed around against other characters
with no more (or even less) evidence than for some of the ones made
against Richard.
best wishes,
Marianne
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:40:19 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Causes of death
It worries me that speculation ends up being piled on speculation,
and random accusations being tossed around against other characters
with no more (or even less) evidence than for some of the ones made
against Richard.
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: Causes of death
2012-09-22 18:09:22
--- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> There's equally no reason (as some have done) to claim that Edward of
> Middleham may have been poisoned, which no-one claimed at the time.
> It worries me that speculation ends up being piled on speculation,
> and random accusations being tossed around against other characters
> with no more (or even less) evidence than for some of the ones made
> against Richard.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
Well Im sorry it has worried you Marianne...but I have thought it *possible* for a very long time that Edward of Middleham was poisoned...There is very scant information on his death...Just a thought...No I dont have evidence...But I did note that someone in his household had connections someone known to Margaret Beaufort....Yikes..Im sorry I mentioned it now....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There's equally no reason (as some have done) to claim that Edward of
> Middleham may have been poisoned, which no-one claimed at the time.
> It worries me that speculation ends up being piled on speculation,
> and random accusations being tossed around against other characters
> with no more (or even less) evidence than for some of the ones made
> against Richard.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
Well Im sorry it has worried you Marianne...but I have thought it *possible* for a very long time that Edward of Middleham was poisoned...There is very scant information on his death...Just a thought...No I dont have evidence...But I did note that someone in his household had connections someone known to Margaret Beaufort....Yikes..Im sorry I mentioned it now....
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Causes of death
2012-09-22 21:35:16
Dear Eileen,
> There is very scant information on his death...Just a thought...No
> I dont have evidence...But I did note that someone in his household
> had connections someone known to Margaret Beaufort....Yikes..Im
> sorry I mentioned it now....
Yes, this is the sort of thing I mean... I note a tendency seems to
have developed to turn Margaret into some kind of all-powerful Bond
villain/Moriarty figure controlling everyone behind the scenes. It's
the same simplistic heroes-and-villains, black-and-white mindset,
just flipped over.
I don't have a problem with Richard seizing the throne to avoid a
minority (and, naturally or not, deposed kings rarely live long).
Unfortunately, no-one did that here in Scotland in the 15C, and the
spoilt brats grew up into unpleasant pieces of work (the Stewarts
kept getting killed off early, but not before breeding, alas!). I
would feel a lot safer having dinner with Richard than with James II
of Scots, or, for that matter, back in my beloved 12C, than with
Richard I (serial rapist and chief suspect in engineering the
assassination of the elected King of Jerusalem, which is *entirely
not* the point of crusading...).
best wishes,
Marianne
> There is very scant information on his death...Just a thought...No
> I dont have evidence...But I did note that someone in his household
> had connections someone known to Margaret Beaufort....Yikes..Im
> sorry I mentioned it now....
Yes, this is the sort of thing I mean... I note a tendency seems to
have developed to turn Margaret into some kind of all-powerful Bond
villain/Moriarty figure controlling everyone behind the scenes. It's
the same simplistic heroes-and-villains, black-and-white mindset,
just flipped over.
I don't have a problem with Richard seizing the throne to avoid a
minority (and, naturally or not, deposed kings rarely live long).
Unfortunately, no-one did that here in Scotland in the 15C, and the
spoilt brats grew up into unpleasant pieces of work (the Stewarts
kept getting killed off early, but not before breeding, alas!). I
would feel a lot safer having dinner with Richard than with James II
of Scots, or, for that matter, back in my beloved 12C, than with
Richard I (serial rapist and chief suspect in engineering the
assassination of the elected King of Jerusalem, which is *entirely
not* the point of crusading...).
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: Causes of death
2012-09-22 22:40:28
Marianne.....Could you tell please tell me ,who in your opinion, were the prime conspirators in the plot to remove Richard from the throne and place on it Henry Tudor? Thank you Eileen
--- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Eileen,
>
> > There is very scant information on his death...Just a thought...No
> > I dont have evidence...But I did note that someone in his household
> > had connections someone known to Margaret Beaufort....Yikes..Im
> > sorry I mentioned it now....
>
> Yes, this is the sort of thing I mean... I note a tendency seems to
> have developed to turn Margaret into some kind of all-powerful Bond
> villain/Moriarty figure controlling everyone behind the scenes. It's
> the same simplistic heroes-and-villains, black-and-white mindset,
> just flipped over.
>
> I don't have a problem with Richard seizing the throne to avoid a
> minority (and, naturally or not, deposed kings rarely live long).
> Unfortunately, no-one did that here in Scotland in the 15C, and the
> spoilt brats grew up into unpleasant pieces of work (the Stewarts
> kept getting killed off early, but not before breeding, alas!). I
> would feel a lot safer having dinner with Richard than with James II
> of Scots, or, for that matter, back in my beloved 12C, than with
> Richard I (serial rapist and chief suspect in engineering the
> assassination of the elected King of Jerusalem, which is *entirely
> not* the point of crusading...).
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
--- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Eileen,
>
> > There is very scant information on his death...Just a thought...No
> > I dont have evidence...But I did note that someone in his household
> > had connections someone known to Margaret Beaufort....Yikes..Im
> > sorry I mentioned it now....
>
> Yes, this is the sort of thing I mean... I note a tendency seems to
> have developed to turn Margaret into some kind of all-powerful Bond
> villain/Moriarty figure controlling everyone behind the scenes. It's
> the same simplistic heroes-and-villains, black-and-white mindset,
> just flipped over.
>
> I don't have a problem with Richard seizing the throne to avoid a
> minority (and, naturally or not, deposed kings rarely live long).
> Unfortunately, no-one did that here in Scotland in the 15C, and the
> spoilt brats grew up into unpleasant pieces of work (the Stewarts
> kept getting killed off early, but not before breeding, alas!). I
> would feel a lot safer having dinner with Richard than with James II
> of Scots, or, for that matter, back in my beloved 12C, than with
> Richard I (serial rapist and chief suspect in engineering the
> assassination of the elected King of Jerusalem, which is *entirely
> not* the point of crusading...).
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
Re: Causes of death
2012-09-23 01:51:18
Every time someone speculates about poison as the cause of the demise of some medieval personage of note, I am reminded of the running joke on "House". A patient will present a gaggle of unrelated but debilitating symptoms, and the team will retire to House's suspiciously nice aquarium office to pitch potential diagnoses. Inevitably, one of the staff will toss out, "Lupus," to which House always responds with flawlessly American-accented disdain, "It's never lupus."
One of my dicta as an ardent amateur history phreak who does not permit facts to get in the way is this: never attribute to conspiracy what might be the result of a good old-fashioned screwup. Ignorance, inattentiveness, and incompetence are just way more common than a group of people making an elaborate plan that depends for its success on every member behaving without flaw and exploiting any possible changes in the factors they can't control.
If I were your average sociopathic social climber in the Middle Ages, I might well ban poison from my arsenal: the dosage is too tough to regulate and there's every chance that, storage technology being what it was, you'd end up testing its lethality without intending to. Nope, when it comes to poison, the best method is to accuse your enemy of having employed it on someone the monarch's fond of.
(Thanks, you guys, for your kind words. By the way, I just go by McJohn out of habit, and have done so for so long that it never occurs to me to change that... McJohn is a perfectly adequate way of addressing me, but if you guys would like more specifics, I'm a Texan with two X chromosomes... in other words, if I were in the line of Richard III, not that I'd ever have such cool braggin' rights as that, I could easily serve as a referent for mtDNA.)
--- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Eileen,
>
> > There is very scant information on his death...Just a thought...No
> > I dont have evidence...But I did note that someone in his household
> > had connections someone known to Margaret Beaufort....Yikes..Im
> > sorry I mentioned it now....
>
> Yes, this is the sort of thing I mean... I note a tendency seems to
> have developed to turn Margaret into some kind of all-powerful Bond
> villain/Moriarty figure controlling everyone behind the scenes. It's
> the same simplistic heroes-and-villains, black-and-white mindset,
> just flipped over.
>
> I don't have a problem with Richard seizing the throne to avoid a
> minority (and, naturally or not, deposed kings rarely live long).
> Unfortunately, no-one did that here in Scotland in the 15C, and the
> spoilt brats grew up into unpleasant pieces of work (the Stewarts
> kept getting killed off early, but not before breeding, alas!). I
> would feel a lot safer having dinner with Richard than with James II
> of Scots, or, for that matter, back in my beloved 12C, than with
> Richard I (serial rapist and chief suspect in engineering the
> assassination of the elected King of Jerusalem, which is *entirely
> not* the point of crusading...).
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
One of my dicta as an ardent amateur history phreak who does not permit facts to get in the way is this: never attribute to conspiracy what might be the result of a good old-fashioned screwup. Ignorance, inattentiveness, and incompetence are just way more common than a group of people making an elaborate plan that depends for its success on every member behaving without flaw and exploiting any possible changes in the factors they can't control.
If I were your average sociopathic social climber in the Middle Ages, I might well ban poison from my arsenal: the dosage is too tough to regulate and there's every chance that, storage technology being what it was, you'd end up testing its lethality without intending to. Nope, when it comes to poison, the best method is to accuse your enemy of having employed it on someone the monarch's fond of.
(Thanks, you guys, for your kind words. By the way, I just go by McJohn out of habit, and have done so for so long that it never occurs to me to change that... McJohn is a perfectly adequate way of addressing me, but if you guys would like more specifics, I'm a Texan with two X chromosomes... in other words, if I were in the line of Richard III, not that I'd ever have such cool braggin' rights as that, I could easily serve as a referent for mtDNA.)
--- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Eileen,
>
> > There is very scant information on his death...Just a thought...No
> > I dont have evidence...But I did note that someone in his household
> > had connections someone known to Margaret Beaufort....Yikes..Im
> > sorry I mentioned it now....
>
> Yes, this is the sort of thing I mean... I note a tendency seems to
> have developed to turn Margaret into some kind of all-powerful Bond
> villain/Moriarty figure controlling everyone behind the scenes. It's
> the same simplistic heroes-and-villains, black-and-white mindset,
> just flipped over.
>
> I don't have a problem with Richard seizing the throne to avoid a
> minority (and, naturally or not, deposed kings rarely live long).
> Unfortunately, no-one did that here in Scotland in the 15C, and the
> spoilt brats grew up into unpleasant pieces of work (the Stewarts
> kept getting killed off early, but not before breeding, alas!). I
> would feel a lot safer having dinner with Richard than with James II
> of Scots, or, for that matter, back in my beloved 12C, than with
> Richard I (serial rapist and chief suspect in engineering the
> assassination of the elected King of Jerusalem, which is *entirely
> not* the point of crusading...).
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 10:25:53
I have just read a letter in The Observer which describes Richard as '...King of England but not an English king...' How many generations does it take to make one 'English'? It is rather like referring to our current Head of State as 'German', the last German-born king being George II (born 1683).
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 10:30:33
I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
God Bless Richard
Christine
In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
God Bless Richard
Christine
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 15:15:57
To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
________________________________
From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
God Bless Richard
Christine
However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
________________________________
From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
God Bless Richard
Christine
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 16:01:41
I dont know if being born in England makes you English...That would make you British..
.but being born in England of English parents would...definitely....
As Christine says God Bless King Richard...
--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
.but being born in England of English parents would...definitely....
As Christine says God Bless King Richard...
--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 16:10:03
Well, in Richard's day, it would have made you English as Britain would not exist for another 100 plus years!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:01
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
I dont know if being born in England makes you English...That would make you British..
.but being born in England of English parents would...definitely....
As Christine says God Bless King Richard...
--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:01
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
I dont know if being born in England makes you English...That would make you British..
.but being born in England of English parents would...definitely....
As Christine says God Bless King Richard...
--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 16:12:52
Oh...of course...!
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Well, in Richard's day, it would have made you English as Britain would not exist for another 100 plus years!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:01
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I dont know if being born in England makes you English...That would make you British..
> .but being born in England of English parents would...definitely....
> As Christine says God Bless King Richard...
>
> --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> >
> > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > God Bless Richard
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Well, in Richard's day, it would have made you English as Britain would not exist for another 100 plus years!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:01
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I dont know if being born in England makes you English...That would make you British..
> .but being born in England of English parents would...definitely....
> As Christine says God Bless King Richard...
>
> --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> >
> > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > God Bless Richard
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 16:21:08
My first thought about slanging Richard III as "not English" would be because he was one of them filthy, vile, disgusting savages from the north.
(I hope you'll excuse me seeing a huge division between north and south. It has caused something of a controversy in the U.S.)
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".Â
> Â
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely  think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
(I hope you'll excuse me seeing a huge division between north and south. It has caused something of a controversy in the U.S.)
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".Â
> Â
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely  think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 16:45:14
Well I don't think we've gone to war yet (officially).
As a Welsh/Anglo with a dash of Scots raised mostly in Midlands and living in the south for the last 25 years, I still get comments about "northerners" (because the north begins at Watford I think .....) nearly as much as I do about "you Welsh"
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:21
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
My first thought about slanging Richard III as "not English" would be because he was one of them filthy, vile, disgusting savages from the north.
(I hope you'll excuse me seeing a huge division between north and south. It has caused something of a controversy in the U.S.)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".Â
> Â
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely  think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
As a Welsh/Anglo with a dash of Scots raised mostly in Midlands and living in the south for the last 25 years, I still get comments about "northerners" (because the north begins at Watford I think .....) nearly as much as I do about "you Welsh"
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:21
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
My first thought about slanging Richard III as "not English" would be because he was one of them filthy, vile, disgusting savages from the north.
(I hope you'll excuse me seeing a huge division between north and south. It has caused something of a controversy in the U.S.)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".Â
> Â
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely  think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 18:32:42
The Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland, of a family settled in that country for hundreds of years, but try telling the Irish he was one of them.
If a ruling caste consciously keep itself apart and above the riff-raff, maintaining hereditary privileges and marrying largely within their own kind, they have hardly become natives.
Was Richard English? Yes, but only just. England had just lost France, and consequently its political centre had been fixed on this side of the Channel. As recently as the rule Henry IV the English nobility spoke Norman French as a first language, and legal documents were still written in Latin.
The ancestry of the present Queen, and her husband, are almost entirely German, with "Windsor" being a fake name dreamed up in the First World War to disguise "English" Royalty's Teutonic origins.
Harold II was the last truly English ruler, elected by a national assembly, not chosen by bloodline. Since then England has been ruled by a divisive alien system built around a succession of alien dynasties largely contemptuous of the general population.
Richard is possibly seen by some as the single ruler in all that time who came closest to identifying with the common folk, which is part of his appeal; but I'm not convinced that's how he would have seen it.
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:21
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
My first thought about slanging Richard III as "not English" would be because he was one of them filthy, vile, disgusting savages from the north.
(I hope you'll excuse me seeing a huge division between north and south. It has caused something of a controversy in the U.S.)
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".Â
> Â
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely  think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
If a ruling caste consciously keep itself apart and above the riff-raff, maintaining hereditary privileges and marrying largely within their own kind, they have hardly become natives.
Was Richard English? Yes, but only just. England had just lost France, and consequently its political centre had been fixed on this side of the Channel. As recently as the rule Henry IV the English nobility spoke Norman French as a first language, and legal documents were still written in Latin.
The ancestry of the present Queen, and her husband, are almost entirely German, with "Windsor" being a fake name dreamed up in the First World War to disguise "English" Royalty's Teutonic origins.
Harold II was the last truly English ruler, elected by a national assembly, not chosen by bloodline. Since then England has been ruled by a divisive alien system built around a succession of alien dynasties largely contemptuous of the general population.
Richard is possibly seen by some as the single ruler in all that time who came closest to identifying with the common folk, which is part of his appeal; but I'm not convinced that's how he would have seen it.
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:21
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
My first thought about slanging Richard III as "not English" would be because he was one of them filthy, vile, disgusting savages from the north.
(I hope you'll excuse me seeing a huge division between north and south. It has caused something of a controversy in the U.S.)
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".Â
> Â
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely  think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 18:48:34
David, apparently Wellington made that comment when someone said to him he was Irish, so he and natives agreed on that point!
<
snip
<<Was Richard English? Yes, but only just
Is that like being " a little bit pregnant"?
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 18:32
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III not an English King......
The Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland, of a family settled in that country for hundreds of years, but try telling the Irish he was one of them.
If a ruling caste consciously keep itself apart and above the riff-raff, maintaining hereditary privileges and marrying largely within their own kind, they have hardly become natives.
Was Richard English? Yes, but only just. England had just lost France, and consequently its political centre had been fixed on this side of the Channel. As recently as the rule Henry IV the English nobility spoke Norman French as a first language, and legal documents were still written in Latin.
The ancestry of the present Queen, and her husband, are almost entirely German, with "Windsor" being a fake name dreamed up in the First World War to disguise "English" Royalty's Teutonic origins.
Harold II was the last truly English ruler, elected by a national assembly, not chosen by bloodline. Since then England has been ruled by a divisive alien system built around a succession of alien dynasties largely contemptuous of the general population.
Richard is possibly seen by some as the single ruler in all that time who came closest to identifying with the common folk, which is part of his appeal; but I'm not convinced that's how he would have seen it.
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:21
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
My first thought about slanging Richard III as "not English" would be because he was one of them filthy, vile, disgusting savages from the north.
(I hope you'll excuse me seeing a huge division between north and south. It has caused something of a controversy in the U.S.)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".Â
> Â
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely  think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
snip
<<Was Richard English? Yes, but only just
Is that like being " a little bit pregnant"?
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 18:32
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III not an English King......
The Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland, of a family settled in that country for hundreds of years, but try telling the Irish he was one of them.
If a ruling caste consciously keep itself apart and above the riff-raff, maintaining hereditary privileges and marrying largely within their own kind, they have hardly become natives.
Was Richard English? Yes, but only just. England had just lost France, and consequently its political centre had been fixed on this side of the Channel. As recently as the rule Henry IV the English nobility spoke Norman French as a first language, and legal documents were still written in Latin.
The ancestry of the present Queen, and her husband, are almost entirely German, with "Windsor" being a fake name dreamed up in the First World War to disguise "English" Royalty's Teutonic origins.
Harold II was the last truly English ruler, elected by a national assembly, not chosen by bloodline. Since then England has been ruled by a divisive alien system built around a succession of alien dynasties largely contemptuous of the general population.
Richard is possibly seen by some as the single ruler in all that time who came closest to identifying with the common folk, which is part of his appeal; but I'm not convinced that's how he would have seen it.
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:21
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
My first thought about slanging Richard III as "not English" would be because he was one of them filthy, vile, disgusting savages from the north.
(I hope you'll excuse me seeing a huge division between north and south. It has caused something of a controversy in the U.S.)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".Â
> Â
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely  think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
> Â
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-23 23:59:17
Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> I have just read a letter in The Observer which describes Richard as '...King of England but not an English king...' How many generations does it take to make one 'English'? It is rather like referring to our current Head of State as 'German', the last German-born king being George II (born 1683).
Carol responds:
If Richard wasn't English, neither was his brother Edward IV. But English was certainly their native language and, Norman heritage or not, they certainly thought of themselves as English. Maybe the letter writer had him confused with the part-French, part-Welsh, only half-English Henry Tudor, who spent most of his life in exile before invading England.
According to Baugh and Cable's "History of the English Language" (admittedly an old book but unlikely to be mistaken on this point), by the mid-thirteenth century, the upper classes spoke French as a cultivated tongue rather than as their native language. The rise of the middle class helped English regain its prestige, and by the beginning of the fourteenth century, everyone in England, educated or uneducated, knew English, which was also becoming accepted as a literary language. Edward III knew English and Richard II spoke it fluently and addressed the people in it. In 13 62, English became the language of the law courts (though until Richard III's Parliament, as we know, the laws themselves were in Latin).
So, let's see. Richard, his parents, and their parents )and grandparents?) all lived in England and spoke English as their first language. Richard was born in England and lived there all his life (not counting involuntary exile in Burgundy). He had some non-English queens as ancestors, but those same women were also the Tudor's ancestors. And the Tudor had both Welsh and French ancestors that Richard didn't have.
Saying that Richard isn't English is like saying that I'm not American because my ancestors immigrated here from England starting with the Mayflower in 1620.
I hope that someone corrects this ignorant letter writer!
Carol
>
> I have just read a letter in The Observer which describes Richard as '...King of England but not an English king...' How many generations does it take to make one 'English'? It is rather like referring to our current Head of State as 'German', the last German-born king being George II (born 1683).
Carol responds:
If Richard wasn't English, neither was his brother Edward IV. But English was certainly their native language and, Norman heritage or not, they certainly thought of themselves as English. Maybe the letter writer had him confused with the part-French, part-Welsh, only half-English Henry Tudor, who spent most of his life in exile before invading England.
According to Baugh and Cable's "History of the English Language" (admittedly an old book but unlikely to be mistaken on this point), by the mid-thirteenth century, the upper classes spoke French as a cultivated tongue rather than as their native language. The rise of the middle class helped English regain its prestige, and by the beginning of the fourteenth century, everyone in England, educated or uneducated, knew English, which was also becoming accepted as a literary language. Edward III knew English and Richard II spoke it fluently and addressed the people in it. In 13 62, English became the language of the law courts (though until Richard III's Parliament, as we know, the laws themselves were in Latin).
So, let's see. Richard, his parents, and their parents )and grandparents?) all lived in England and spoke English as their first language. Richard was born in England and lived there all his life (not counting involuntary exile in Burgundy). He had some non-English queens as ancestors, but those same women were also the Tudor's ancestors. And the Tudor had both Welsh and French ancestors that Richard didn't have.
Saying that Richard isn't English is like saying that I'm not American because my ancestors immigrated here from England starting with the Mayflower in 1620.
I hope that someone corrects this ignorant letter writer!
Carol
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 00:34:18
I'm wondering if whoever wrote the letter got him confused with Richard I? Although born in England, he is said to have not been able to speak English - in his era the Plantagenets were certainly more French than English. And he spent most of his reign outside of his realm.
----- Original Message -----
From: "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 4:59:14 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> I have just read a letter in The Observer which describes Richard as '...King of England but not an English king...' How many generations does it take to make one 'English'? It is rather like referring to our current Head of State as 'German', the last German-born king being George II (born 1683).
Carol responds:
If Richard wasn't English, neither was his brother Edward IV. But English was certainly their native language and, Norman heritage or not, they certainly thought of themselves as English. Maybe the letter writer had him confused with the part-French, part-Welsh, only half-English Henry Tudor, who spent most of his life in exile before invading England.
According to Baugh and Cable's "History of the English Language" (admittedly an old book but unlikely to be mistaken on this point), by the mid-thirteenth century, the upper classes spoke French as a cultivated tongue rather than as their native language. The rise of the middle class helped English regain its prestige, and by the beginning of the fourteenth century, everyone in England, educated or uneducated, knew English, which was also becoming accepted as a literary language. Edward III knew English and Richard II spoke it fluently and addressed the people in it. In 13 62, English became the language of the law courts (though until Richard III's Parliament, as we know, the laws themselves were in Latin).
So, let's see. Richard, his parents, and their parents )and grandparents?) all lived in England and spoke English as their first language. Richard was born in England and lived there all his life (not counting involuntary exile in Burgundy). He had some non-English queens as ancestors, but those same women were also the Tudor's ancestors. And the Tudor had both Welsh and French ancestors that Richard didn't have.
Saying that Richard isn't English is like saying that I'm not American because my ancestors immigrated here from England starting with the Mayflower in 1620.
I hope that someone corrects this ignorant letter writer!
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 4:59:14 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> I have just read a letter in The Observer which describes Richard as '...King of England but not an English king...' How many generations does it take to make one 'English'? It is rather like referring to our current Head of State as 'German', the last German-born king being George II (born 1683).
Carol responds:
If Richard wasn't English, neither was his brother Edward IV. But English was certainly their native language and, Norman heritage or not, they certainly thought of themselves as English. Maybe the letter writer had him confused with the part-French, part-Welsh, only half-English Henry Tudor, who spent most of his life in exile before invading England.
According to Baugh and Cable's "History of the English Language" (admittedly an old book but unlikely to be mistaken on this point), by the mid-thirteenth century, the upper classes spoke French as a cultivated tongue rather than as their native language. The rise of the middle class helped English regain its prestige, and by the beginning of the fourteenth century, everyone in England, educated or uneducated, knew English, which was also becoming accepted as a literary language. Edward III knew English and Richard II spoke it fluently and addressed the people in it. In 13 62, English became the language of the law courts (though until Richard III's Parliament, as we know, the laws themselves were in Latin).
So, let's see. Richard, his parents, and their parents )and grandparents?) all lived in England and spoke English as their first language. Richard was born in England and lived there all his life (not counting involuntary exile in Burgundy). He had some non-English queens as ancestors, but those same women were also the Tudor's ancestors. And the Tudor had both Welsh and French ancestors that Richard didn't have.
Saying that Richard isn't English is like saying that I'm not American because my ancestors immigrated here from England starting with the Mayflower in 1620.
I hope that someone corrects this ignorant letter writer!
Carol
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 11:32:22
I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
Paul
On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
>
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
>
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
> To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
>
> However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
>
> I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> God Bless Richard
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 11:43:45
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> Paul
>
>
> On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
>
> > To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
> >
> > However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> > Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > God Bless Richard
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> Paul
>
>
> On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
>
> > To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
> >
> > However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> > Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > God Bless Richard
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 11:46:15
I think these kind of arguments can get very dodgy, one ends up arguing that a person is only English if they can trace their descent back to the Beaker People, or whatever.
As far as I can make out, Richard's parents and grandparents would all have considered themselves English. As would, I suspect, the majority of his great-grandparents. So as we define nationality now, I think he was English.
Brian W.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> Paul
>
As far as I can make out, Richard's parents and grandparents would all have considered themselves English. As would, I suspect, the majority of his great-grandparents. So as we define nationality now, I think he was English.
Brian W.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> Paul
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 11:54:30
This is Buck's translation of Richard's epitaph....which I have taken from Mr Ashdown-Hills book...I have only typed the first half (the other half just blows Tudor's trumpet which I sure no-one here is interested in) .which mentions both British and English...
This demonstrates that at the time the epitaph was written Richard was regarded as English which is absolutely correct. Its rubbish that Richard should be considered otherwise...
I who am laid beneath this marble stone
Richard the Third, possessed the British throne
My country's guardian in my nephews claim
By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came
Two years and sixty day's, save two, I reign'd
And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd
My English left me in the luckless field,
Where to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.....
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > > To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
> > >
> > > However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > > God Bless Richard
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
This demonstrates that at the time the epitaph was written Richard was regarded as English which is absolutely correct. Its rubbish that Richard should be considered otherwise...
I who am laid beneath this marble stone
Richard the Third, possessed the British throne
My country's guardian in my nephews claim
By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came
Two years and sixty day's, save two, I reign'd
And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd
My English left me in the luckless field,
Where to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.....
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > > To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
> > >
> > > However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > > God Bless Richard
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 12:06:15
Certainly the intention of the individual as far as his/her belief in
his/her home, nation, and people is a relevant part of the mix, and maybe a
crucial component.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:46 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English
King......
I think these kind of arguments can get very dodgy, one ends up arguing that
a person is only English if they can trace their descent back to the Beaker
People, or whatever.
As far as I can make out, Richard's parents and grandparents would all have
considered themselves English. As would, I suspect, the majority of his
great-grandparents. So as we define nationality now, I think he was English.
Brian W.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about
our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England.
Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> Paul
>
his/her home, nation, and people is a relevant part of the mix, and maybe a
crucial component.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:46 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English
King......
I think these kind of arguments can get very dodgy, one ends up arguing that
a person is only English if they can trace their descent back to the Beaker
People, or whatever.
As far as I can make out, Richard's parents and grandparents would all have
considered themselves English. As would, I suspect, the majority of his
great-grandparents. So as we define nationality now, I think he was English.
Brian W.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about
our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England.
Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> Paul
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 12:31:52
Brian:
> I think these kind of arguments can get very dodgy, one ends up arguing that a person is only English if they can trace their descent back to the Beaker People, or whatever.
Lol Brian...and I think they were Germans....Eileen
>
> As far as I can make out, Richard's parents and grandparents would all have considered themselves English. As would, I suspect, the majority of his great-grandparents. So as we define nationality now, I think he was English.
>
> Brian W.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > Paul
> >
>
> I think these kind of arguments can get very dodgy, one ends up arguing that a person is only English if they can trace their descent back to the Beaker People, or whatever.
Lol Brian...and I think they were Germans....Eileen
>
> As far as I can make out, Richard's parents and grandparents would all have considered themselves English. As would, I suspect, the majority of his great-grandparents. So as we define nationality now, I think he was English.
>
> Brian W.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > Paul
> >
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 12:40:16
Brian:
> I think these kind of arguments can get very dodgy, one ends up arguing that a person is only English if they can trace their descent back to the Beaker People, or whatever.
Lol Brian...and I think they were Germans....Eileen
>
> As far as I can make out, Richard's parents and grandparents would all have considered themselves English. As would, I suspect, the majority of his great-grandparents. So as we define nationality now, I think he was English.
>
> Brian W.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > Paul
> >
>
> I think these kind of arguments can get very dodgy, one ends up arguing that a person is only English if they can trace their descent back to the Beaker People, or whatever.
Lol Brian...and I think they were Germans....Eileen
>
> As far as I can make out, Richard's parents and grandparents would all have considered themselves English. As would, I suspect, the majority of his great-grandparents. So as we define nationality now, I think he was English.
>
> Brian W.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > Paul
> >
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 12:51:20
Great post - it would not surprise me if DR. JA-H were reading this;)
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
This is Buck's translation of Richard's epitaph....which I have taken from Mr Ashdown-Hills book...I have only typed the first half (the other half just blows Tudor's trumpet which I sure no-one here is interested in) .which mentions both British and English...
This demonstrates that at the time the epitaph was written Richard was regarded as English which is absolutely correct. Its rubbish that Richard should be considered otherwise...
I who am laid beneath this marble stone
Richard the Third, possessed the British throne
My country's guardian in my nephews claim
By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came
Two years and sixty day's, save two, I reign'd
And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd
My English left me in the luckless field,
Where to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.....
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > > To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
> > >
> > > However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > > God Bless Richard
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
This is Buck's translation of Richard's epitaph....which I have taken from Mr Ashdown-Hills book...I have only typed the first half (the other half just blows Tudor's trumpet which I sure no-one here is interested in) .which mentions both British and English...
This demonstrates that at the time the epitaph was written Richard was regarded as English which is absolutely correct. Its rubbish that Richard should be considered otherwise...
I who am laid beneath this marble stone
Richard the Third, possessed the British throne
My country's guardian in my nephews claim
By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came
Two years and sixty day's, save two, I reign'd
And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd
My English left me in the luckless field,
Where to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.....
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > > To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
> > >
> > > However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > > God Bless Richard
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Re: Richard III not an English King......
2012-09-24 13:09:47
Thank you Stephen...I thoroughly enjoy Dr Ashdown-Hills books especially Eleanor the Secret Queen. I understand Dr A-H has also played a big role, among others, in the search for King Richard's remains. For which I thank him...and...if I ever get the chance I would be giving this gentleman one enormous HUG....Its just as well our paths will never cross as I should imagine he would find this quite embarrassing...:0)
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Great post - it would not surprise me if DR. JA-H were reading this;)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
>
> This is Buck's translation of Richard's epitaph....which I have taken from Mr Ashdown-Hills book...I have only typed the first half (the other half just blows Tudor's trumpet which I sure no-one here is interested in) .which mentions both British and English...
>
> This demonstrates that at the time the epitaph was written Richard was regarded as English which is absolutely correct. Its rubbish that Richard should be considered otherwise...
>
> I who am laid beneath this marble stone
> Richard the Third, possessed the British throne
> My country's guardian in my nephews claim
> By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came
> Two years and sixty day's, save two, I reign'd
> And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd
> My English left me in the luckless field,
> Where to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.....
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
> > > >
> > > > However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > > > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > > > God Bless Richard
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Great post - it would not surprise me if DR. JA-H were reading this;)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
>
>
>
> This is Buck's translation of Richard's epitaph....which I have taken from Mr Ashdown-Hills book...I have only typed the first half (the other half just blows Tudor's trumpet which I sure no-one here is interested in) .which mentions both British and English...
>
> This demonstrates that at the time the epitaph was written Richard was regarded as English which is absolutely correct. Its rubbish that Richard should be considered otherwise...
>
> I who am laid beneath this marble stone
> Richard the Third, possessed the British throne
> My country's guardian in my nephews claim
> By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came
> Two years and sixty day's, save two, I reign'd
> And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd
> My English left me in the luckless field,
> Where to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.....
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I recall a tv programme in which a member of the public when asked about our kings lashed out with "Richard III was the last English king of England. Since then we've had Welsh, Scots, and bloody Germans!!!"
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > To quote the Duke of Wellington "just 'cos a man's born in a stable don't make him a horse".
> > > >
> > > > However I totally agree that Richard was English and to suggest anything else is just absurd. However I definitely think of the above quote with reference to Tudor who played up his "Welshness" because it suited him and for no other reason.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 10:30
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard III not an English King......
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe they are wrong, Richard was born in England so this makes him an English King does it not.
> > > > In fact I belive he was the first truly English King.
> > > > God Bless Richard
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
2012-09-24 14:23:04
Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
Many thanks!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
.
If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
Many thanks!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
.
Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
2012-09-25 12:31:11
Hi,
I like also to impress my thanks. As I have studied western medieval architecture a few years ago, it was of particular interest to me.
Oh, I know only of the sparse material I saw mentioned in various books but the wikipedia site of Grey Friars is rapidly growing and there the list with references who looks useful too. I guess you know that one already? I don´t know how much of information there´ll be found, if there are only short sentences or whole chapters.
Marion Z
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
>
> If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
>
> Many thanks!
> Judy
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
I like also to impress my thanks. As I have studied western medieval architecture a few years ago, it was of particular interest to me.
Oh, I know only of the sparse material I saw mentioned in various books but the wikipedia site of Grey Friars is rapidly growing and there the list with references who looks useful too. I guess you know that one already? I don´t know how much of information there´ll be found, if there are only short sentences or whole chapters.
Marion Z
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
>
> If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
>
> Many thanks!
> Judy
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
2012-09-25 13:53:09
Thanks, Marion. While WikiP isn't my first choice of resource, this topic is emotionally neutral. I'll be sure and check it out.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: marionziemke <marionziemke@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Hi,
I like also to impress my thanks. As I have studied western medieval architecture a few years ago, it was of particular interest to me.
Oh, I know only of the sparse material I saw mentioned in various books but the wikipedia site of Grey Friars is rapidly growing and there the list with references who looks useful too. I guess you know that one already? I don´t know how much of information there´ll be found, if there are only short sentences or whole chapters.
Marion Z
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
>
> If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
>
> Many thanks!
> Judy
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: marionziemke <marionziemke@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Hi,
I like also to impress my thanks. As I have studied western medieval architecture a few years ago, it was of particular interest to me.
Oh, I know only of the sparse material I saw mentioned in various books but the wikipedia site of Grey Friars is rapidly growing and there the list with references who looks useful too. I guess you know that one already? I don´t know how much of information there´ll be found, if there are only short sentences or whole chapters.
Marion Z
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
>
> If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
>
> Many thanks!
> Judy
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
2012-09-26 21:31:21
Judy, I don't know whether this plan is capable of being downloaded from the Yahoo file, but anyway I'm attaching a copy of it for you herewith. I'm not sure whether it's copyright or public domain (this is not the absolutely latest one), but anyway, here is your personal scan.
XX Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
Many thanks!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
.
XX Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
Many thanks!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
.
Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
2012-09-26 21:37:52
Sorry folks, this message was intended for Judy's personal email address, to which I have now sent the plan.
Judy, I don't know whether this plan is capable of being downloaded from the Yahoo file, but anyway I'm attaching a copy of it for you herewith. I'm not sure whether it's copyright or public domain (this is not the absolutely latest one), but anyway, here is your personal scan.
XX Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
Many thanks!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
.
Judy, I don't know whether this plan is capable of being downloaded from the Yahoo file, but anyway I'm attaching a copy of it for you herewith. I'm not sure whether it's copyright or public domain (this is not the absolutely latest one), but anyway, here is your personal scan.
XX Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
Many thanks!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
.
Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
2012-09-26 23:31:27
Hi, Annette. Seems this Forum strips off attachments.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Judy, I don't know whether this plan is capable of being downloaded from the Yahoo file, but anyway I'm attaching a copy of it for you herewith. I'm not sure whether it's copyright or public domain (this is not the absolutely latest one), but anyway, here is your personal scan.
XX Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
Many thanks!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Judy, I don't know whether this plan is capable of being downloaded from the Yahoo file, but anyway I'm attaching a copy of it for you herewith. I'm not sure whether it's copyright or public domain (this is not the absolutely latest one), but anyway, here is your personal scan.
XX Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Plan of the Greyfriars church
Billions and billions (to quote the late Carl Sagan) of thanks for the diagram of the Greyfriars' church. This is enormously useful to me - and no doubt to many others. My researches of Greyfriars in general have led me to believe that like those little crabs that commandeer shells and coral as their homes, these mendicants depended upon the generosity of others to endow them with property, so that even their church was probably not built by them or even specifically for them originally. And I imagine the Order possessing a warren of disparate adjacent structures, comprising their holdings. While no friar owned anything, if this were a "conventual" house, which I suspect it to have been, the House "owned" the property in common. There were probably yards and gardens, for a certain degree of self-sufficiency as to foodstuffs.
If any anyone among you has more specific knowledge (or insights) about this, I'd be most appreciative. Or if you know of some site(s)...? My original researches date back to the 1980s and were drawn from books, available through inter-library loan. My recent forays Online on these specifics (Leicester's Greyfriars) have heretofore been mostly cloacae, blind alleys.
Many thanks!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.