(no subject)

It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on this&..petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets work FAST !!!! What is the Group input&..? By the way&.I love the idea of making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much&.and we probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say&..oh, thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.

Well we certainly won't wine all the battle while there are still blinkered traditionalists out there.  On the "talk" page for Richard's wikipedia entry, I was told in no uncertain terms that the fact that the body found in Leicester had scoliosis means that the Tudor "historians" were vindicated because he was deformed! 



________________________________
From: Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 21:01
Subject:

It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard,  is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being.  I would argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other human archeological  findings, that help us educate ourselves and future generations.  Historical figures have their significant place in time.  And Richards is not completely and fairly, written.  I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations  back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense.  He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are.  So perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on this&..petitioning the Queen and the  planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be
completed.  Lets work FAST !!!!  What is the Group input&..?  By the way&.I love the idea of making a full head/facial portrait from a skull.  Ive seen fascinating work done by experts in this field.  I guess thats asking too much&.and we probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly would be wonderful for us all.  "outsiders" would say&..oh, thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible guy.  I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi, Liz 

Yah, there will always be cretins out there! J



It may have been in the *Current Archaeology* that was recently uploaded, where among other things, mention is made of other noteworthy people who have had scoliosis. One of them was Liz Taylor (aka the most beautiful woman in the world). I knew she had chronic back problems, but I never knew that she had scoliosis. Others cited as having scoliosis included Liza Minnelli, Curt Cobain, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Usain Bolt. Try telling Usain that he's deformed. Sheesh. Better yet, tell that to the guy on the Wikipedia site. J



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~







From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 6:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re:





Well we certainly won't wine all the battle while there are still blinkered traditionalists out there. On the "talk" page for Richard's wikipedia entry, I was told in no uncertain terms that the fact that the body found in Leicester had scoliosis means that the Tudor "historians" were vindicated because he was deformed!

________________________________
From: Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@... <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 21:01
Subject:

It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on this&..petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be
completed. Lets work FAST !!!! What is the Group input&..? By the way&.I love the idea of making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much&.and we probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say&..oh, thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Liz it's almost unbelievable that such dinosaurs exist in the 21st century. Do you think they mean that because he had scoliosis he was what they term a hunchback therefore he was evil and the Tudor "historians" were vindicated. If so it is a very disturbing attitude.

I suppose that we should feel sorry for them that they are so bigoted that they have not bothered to read the reports from the dig. Also they are not aware of the fact that Henry Tudor had no rightful claim to the throne. It was something just dreamed up by his dear mother. He had to somehow make out that Richard was evil to justify the fact that he murdered an anointed King. If Richard had been a King in the same mold as Edward 1 then maybe he would not have had to work so hard to rubbish him, however, in his short reign Richard did more good for the people than Henry did in his 24 years. I believe Jeremy Potter in his excellent book "Good King Richard" compares the two years of Richard's reign with the first two years of Henry's and Henry is found wanting. So maybe we revisionists should make more of the fact that Henry told lies about Richard because the reality was that he was a very good King, much better than Henry could ever hope to be.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well we certainly won't wine all the battle while there are still blinkered traditionalists out there.  On the "talk" page for Richard's wikipedia entry, I was told in no uncertain terms that the fact that the body found in Leicester had scoliosis means that the Tudor "historians" were vindicated because he was deformed! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 21:01
> Subject:
>
> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard,  is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being.  I would argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other human archeological  findings, that help us educate ourselves and future generations.  Historical figures have their significant place in time.  And Richards is not completely and fairly, written.  I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations  back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense.  He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are.  So perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on this…..petitioning the Queen and the  planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be
> completed.  Lets work FAST !!!!  What is the Group input…..?  By the way….I love the idea of making a full head/facial portrait from a skull.  Ive seen fascinating work done by experts in this field.  I guess thats asking too much….and we probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly would be wonderful for us all.  "outsiders" would say…..oh, thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible guy.  I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

They'll use any tidbit.

BTW, those forensic facial reconstructions are still made based on certain assumptions of average appearance for individuals of particular ethnicity, etc., so don't expect the result to be quite as definitive as we might wish, with regard to the subtleties of the features. Contours, the depth of the eye orbits, the brow lines will be easy enough. But some details will remain more speculative....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2012 4:09 PM
Subject: Re:


 
Well we certainly won't wine all the battle while there are still blinkered traditionalists out there.  On the "talk" page for Richard's wikipedia entry, I was told in no uncertain terms that the fact that the body found in Leicester had scoliosis means that the Tudor "historians" were vindicated because he was deformed! 

________________________________
From: Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 21:01
Subject:

It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard,  is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being.  I would argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other human archeological  findings, that help us educate ourselves and future generations.  Historical figures have their significant place in time.  And Richards is not completely and fairly, written.  I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations  back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense.  He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are.  So perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on this&..petitioning the Queen and the  planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be
completed.  Lets work FAST !!!!  What is the Group input&..?  By the way&.I love the idea of making a full head/facial portrait from a skull.  Ive seen fascinating work done by experts in this field.  I guess thats asking too much&.and we probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly would be wonderful for us all.  "outsiders" would say&..oh, thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible guy.  I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Let me remind you.
Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch, so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt, so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor usurpation.
Paul

On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:

> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on this&..petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets work FAST !!!! What is the Group input&..? By the way&.I love the idea of making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much&.and we probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say&..oh, thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Dear Paul -
Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de
jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who
ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might
have been de facto king but was not de jure king.

Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British
Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that
such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy
in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to
be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a
lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious
ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own
that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has
been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think
not! Or at least I hope not! :-)

I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are
problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to
faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the
current monarch, long may she reign.

So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world
about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon
against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the
process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.

TTFN :-)

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
To:
Subject: Re:

Let me remind you.
Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King
of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the
descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,
so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,
so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would
she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be
raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of
the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor
usurpation.
Paul

On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:

> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is
another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is
the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO
much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other
human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future
generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And
Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of
all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history,
in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So
perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on
this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to
enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets
work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea of
making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work
done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly
would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible
guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Surely it's the case that Parliament has accepted the current line at various stages (e.g. the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution etc), so the royal family is no less legitimate through not being of Plantagenet descent than Richard was through not being descended from Harold Godwinson...

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012, 11:09
Subject: Re:

Let me remind you.
Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch, so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt, so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor usurpation.
Paul

On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:

> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard,  is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being.  I would argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other human archeological  findings, that help us educate ourselves and future generations.  Historical figures have their significant place in time.  And Richards is not completely and fairly, written.  I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations  back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense.  He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are.  So perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on this&..petitioning the Queen and the  planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be
completed.  Lets work FAST !!!!  What is the Group input&..?  By the way&.I love the idea of making a full head/facial portrait from a skull.  Ive seen fascinating work done by experts in this field.  I guess thats asking too much&.and we probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly would be wonderful for us all.  "outsiders" would say&..oh, thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible guy.  I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words 'bastard'
about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.

Karen

On 8/10/12 9:09 PM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...> wrote:

>Let me remind you.
>Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful
>King of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor,
>the descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another
>branch, so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
>Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite
>doubt, so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine
>her reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined.
>What would she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex
>and from a different age? The questions about the legality of our
>monarchy would be raised in public again, and those questions would be
>many.
>I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards
>of the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the
>Tudor usurpation.
>Paul
>
>On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:
>
>> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result
>>is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for
>>Richard, is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would
>>argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one
>>around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work
>>done with other human archeological findings, that help us educate
>>ourselves and future generations. Historical figures have their
>>significant place in time. And Richards is not completely and fairly,
>>written. I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations
>>back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense. He sounds
>>like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So perhaps someone in ours or
>>another Group, needs to quickly get to work on thisŠ..petitioning the
>>Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete
>>investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets work FAST !!!!
>>What is the Group inputŠ..? By the wayŠ.I love the idea of making a
>>full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work done
>>by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too muchŠ.and we
>>probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it
>>certainly would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would sayŠ..oh,
>>thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not
>>a terrible guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Very well said, Johanne.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:42:25 -0300
To: <>
Subject: RE:






Dear Paul -
Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de
jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who
ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might
have been de facto king but was not de jure king.

Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British
Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that
such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy
in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to
be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a
lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious
ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own
that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has
been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think
not! Or at least I hope not! :-)

I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are
problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to
faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the
current monarch, long may she reign.

So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world
about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon
against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the
process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.

TTFN :-)

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re:

Let me remind you.
Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King
of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the
descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,
so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,
so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would
she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be
raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of
the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor
usurpation.
Paul

On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:

> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is
another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is
the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO
much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other
human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future
generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And
Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of
all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history,
in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So
perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on
this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to
enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets
work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea of
making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work
done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly
would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible
guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Thanks, Karen! J



Johanne



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:19 AM
To:
Subject: Re:





Very well said, Johanne.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:42:25 -0300
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE:

Dear Paul -
Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de
jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who
ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might
have been de facto king but was not de jure king.

Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British
Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that
such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy
in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to
be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a
lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious
ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own
that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has
been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think
not! Or at least I hope not! :-)

I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are
problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to
faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the
current monarch, long may she reign.

So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world
about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon
against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the
process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.

TTFN :-)

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_._,___

I did indeed say that on the wiki site.  I haven't been back to see if there were any further comments, life is too short to waste my time with idiots.

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 22:36
Subject: RE:

 
Hi, Liz 

Yah, there will always be cretins out there! J

It may have been in the *Current Archaeology* that was recently uploaded, where among other things, mention is made of other noteworthy people who have had scoliosis. One of them was Liz Taylor (aka the most beautiful woman in the world). I knew she had chronic back problems, but I never knew that she had scoliosis. Others cited as having scoliosis included Liza Minnelli, Curt Cobain, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Usain Bolt. Try telling Usain that he's deformed. Sheesh. Better yet, tell that to the guy on the Wikipedia site. J

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 6:09 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:

Well we certainly won't wine all the battle while there are still blinkered traditionalists out there. On the "talk" page for Richard's wikipedia entry, I was told in no uncertain terms that the fact that the body found in Leicester had scoliosis means that the Tudor "historians" were vindicated because he was deformed!

________________________________
From: Carol Darling <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com> >
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 21:01
Subject:

It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on this&..petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be
completed. Lets work FAST !!!! What is the Group input&..? By the way&.I love the idea of making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much&.and we probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say&..oh, thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

You've made the point, anyway! Life's too short to stress out over such things. Johanne



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:42 AM
To:
Subject: Re:





I did indeed say that on the wiki site. I haven't been back to see if there were any further comments, life is too short to waste my time with idiots.

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 22:36
Subject: RE:


Hi, Liz 

Yah, there will always be cretins out there! J

It may have been in the *Current Archaeology* that was recently uploaded, where among other things, mention is made of other noteworthy people who have had scoliosis. One of them was Liz Taylor (aka the most beautiful woman in the world). I knew she had chronic back problems, but I never knew that she had scoliosis. Others cited as having scoliosis included Liza Minnelli, Curt Cobain, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Usain Bolt. Try telling Usain that he's deformed. Sheesh. Better yet, tell that to the guy on the Wikipedia site. J

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's a good point, too, Jonathan. One could say that Parliament has legitimated the current Royal Family. (smiley)



Johanne



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re:





Surely it's the case that Parliament has accepted the current line at various stages (e.g. the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution etc), so the royal family is no less legitimate through not being of Plantagenet descent than Richard was through not being descended from Harold Godwinson...

Jonathan

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGU5dHZ1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMzQ5NjkzMDc1> New Files 2

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOXRjY3EwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM0OTY5MzA3NQ--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZTkxM2FoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzQ5NjkzMDc1> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=16628/stime=1349693075/nc1=3848621/nc2=5008815/nc3=4025321>

what you write totally true paul. however, h7 claimed the throne by right of conquest. IF his supporters and most of all countrymen/women allowed him to keep the throne in 1485. we have to accept that some sort of statute of limitations has run out. it has been too many generations to consider the illegitimacy of h7 and e of y.

moreover in canada at least children are no longer judged on their parents pre-birth actions. basically, there are no illegitimate children in canada. welcome to the 21st century.
i do know the bible says the illegitimate child is cursed for 10 generations.

bastard is now an archaic and vulgar word used to describe a "misfortune" of a child's birth or a mean spirited and illtempered adult male.

--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re:
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:09 AM

Let me remind you.
Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch, so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt, so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor usurpation.
Paul

On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:

> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard,  is the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being.  I would argue that Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other human archeological  findings, that help us educate ourselves and future generations.  Historical figures have their significant place in time.  And Richards is not completely and fairly, written.  I know he would approve of all of our efforts for generations  back, to be fair to him, and to history, in a broader sense.  He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are.  So perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on this&..petitioning the Queen and the  planning of retaining whatever, to enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be
completed.  Lets work FAST !!!!  What is the Group input&..?  By the way&.I love the idea of making a full head/facial portrait from a skull.  Ive seen fascinating work done by experts in this field.  I guess thats asking too much&.and we probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly would be wonderful for us all.  "outsiders" would say&..oh, thats just satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible guy.  I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Dear Paul -
<snip>
>
> Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. <snip>

Carol responds:

While there's more than a kernel of bastardy in this supposed union of York and Lancaster, I agree in principle with your conclusion: At this point the bastardy is no longer relevant, not to mention that if we follow that line of reasoning, no king or queen of England, Richard included, was legitimate, because they were all descended from William the Bastard of Normandy.

I would hope that the queen would not be so small minded as to deny Richard the right to be regarded as a rightful king of England. I suspect that her reluctance to disinter the bones of the "princes" has more to do with respect for the dead--and perhaps for tradition--than any fear that her own monarchy and that of her descendants will be regarded as illegitimate. Possibly, she has some sort of perception of Edward IV's sons as her "ancestors" (obviously, they're not regardless of whether the bones are theirs), when in fact she's almost as closely related to Richard (Elizabeth of York's uncle and Edward IV's brother) as to Elizabeth of York's brothers (Henry VIII's uncles).

Anyway, I'm hoping that the current Duke of Gloucester will persuade someone in the royal family to look into the matter. Does anyone know if he has descendants and whether they're also interested in Richard III?

Carol

On 08/10/2012 11:44, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Surely it's the case that Parliament has accepted the current line at various stages (e.g. the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution etc), so the royal family is no less legitimate through not being of Plantagenet descent than Richard was through not being descended from Harold Godwinson...
>
> Jonathan
>

Henry VII - king by conquest, unfortunately - strengthened his claim to
the throne by marrying a Plantagenet. Had it not been for the Salic Law,
however, he would have had a better personal claim to France....

The Queen is descended from William the Conqueror via Edward IV.

Best wishes
Christine

Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Surely it's the case that Parliament has accepted the current line at various stages (e.g. the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution etc), so the royal family is no less legitimate through not being of Plantagenet descent than Richard was through not being descended from Harold Godwinson...
>
> Jonathan

Carol responds:

But they *are* of (legitimized) Plantagenet descent through Elizabeth of York and even through Henry Tudor, whose mother was a Beaufort (another legitimized Plantagenet line). The Stuart line was descended from Elizabeth of York's daughter, Margaret Tudor. The Plantagenet blood of the Stuarts is in the female line, but it's there. Even the House of Hanover traces back to the Stuart James VI, who in turn traces back to the Plantagenet Elizabeth of York and her father, Edward IV, through a female line.

But, yes, the question of which descendant of William the Conqueror should rule has been a vexed question ever since the civil war between Stephen and Matilda (Maude the Empress) and even more so with the descendants of Edward III, among them Henry VI, Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, and (sigh) Henry VII (whose shaky claim was through his Beaufort mother).

Carol

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words 'bastard' about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
>
> Karen

Carol responds:

Interesting point. I had forgotten about Joan Beaufort, who was born illegitimate but legitimized by Richard II (though her brothers and their descendants were barred from the throne by Henry IV). The difference is that Richard did not claim the throne through the Beauforts. His claim through his father was untainted in that regard. Henry VII had no other claim (other than the lie that he was a son of Henry VI and, later, "right of conquest") than his Beaufort descent through his mother (which enabled Richard to attack his legitimacy on both sides). And Edward V really was, based on his father's precontract with Eleanor Butler (assuming it to be true, as I do) a bastard according to the laws of the times. That the bastardy could be and later was reversed by Parliament and that it should have been proven in an ecclesiastical court is not, as far as I know, in dispute.

By the way, the term "bastard" was not a term of disparagement in the fifteenth century. It merely meant "illegitimate," and Richard used it fondly in relation to his own "dear bastard," John of Gloucester.

Carol

I think that if you go back in any family's history there is sometimes a
very slight depression between which side of the sheets one has born! This
is I believe the year 2012 and life has somewhat evolved, The tern
"Bastard" was used to differentiate between wife's and concubine offspring
in fact is used as an endearment in the north of England I remember being
welcomed on a flight from Leeds to Heathrow with " George you old bastard"
much to the delight of the Americans I was with!



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 12:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's grandmother





Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words 'bastard'
about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
>
> Karen

Carol responds:

Interesting point. I had forgotten about Joan Beaufort, who was born
illegitimate but legitimized by Richard II (though her brothers and their
descendants were barred from the throne by Henry IV). The difference is that
Richard did not claim the throne through the Beauforts. His claim through
his father was untainted in that regard. Henry VII had no other claim (other
than the lie that he was a son of Henry VI and, later, "right of conquest")
than his Beaufort descent through his mother (which enabled Richard to
attack his legitimacy on both sides). And Edward V really was, based on his
father's precontract with Eleanor Butler (assuming it to be true, as I do) a
bastard according to the laws of the times. That the bastardy could be and
later was reversed by Parliament and that it should have been proven in an
ecclesiastical court is not, as far as I know, in dispute.

By the way, the term "bastard" was not a term of disparagement in the
fifteenth century. It merely meant "illegitimate," and Richard used it
fondly in relation to his own "dear bastard," John of Gloucester.

Carol

Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal beyond death to Richard.
Which I admit I am.
It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.
De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light back in time.
Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH. Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From small acorns revolutions begin.
It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up some politicians first!!!
Paul


On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Dear Paul -
> Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de
> jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who
> ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might
> have been de facto king but was not de jure king.
>
> Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British
> Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that
> such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy
> in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to
> be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a
> lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious
> ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own
> that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
> everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has
> been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think
> not! Or at least I hope not! :-)
>
> I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are
> problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
> bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
> service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to
> faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the
> current monarch, long may she reign.
>
> So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world
> about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon
> against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the
> process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.
>
> TTFN :-)
>
> Johanne
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
> - Jesus of Nazareth
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re:
>
> Let me remind you.
> Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King
> of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the
> descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,
> so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
> Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,
> so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
> reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would
> she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
> different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be
> raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
> I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of
> the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor
> usurpation.
> Paul
>
> On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:
>
>> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is
> another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is
> the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
> Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO
> much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other
> human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future
> generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And
> Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of
> all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history,
> in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So
> perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on
> this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to
> enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets
> work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea of
> making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work
> done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
> probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly
> would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
> satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible
> guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Basically the truth of the matter is that the Queen seldom.if ever, acts without the advice of her courtiers/advisors...Those days are long gone when a monarch had much say in what went on. The public seldom knows what goes on in the Royal head....Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal beyond death to Richard.
> Which I admit I am.
> It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.
> De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light back in time.
> Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH. Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From small acorns revolutions begin.
> It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up some politicians first!!!
> Paul
>
>
> On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > Dear Paul -
> > Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de
> > jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who
> > ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might
> > have been de facto king but was not de jure king.
> >
> > Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British
> > Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that
> > such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy
> > in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to
> > be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a
> > lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious
> > ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own
> > that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
> > everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has
> > been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think
> > not! Or at least I hope not! :-)
> >
> > I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are
> > problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
> > bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
> > service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to
> > faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the
> > current monarch, long may she reign.
> >
> > So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world
> > about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon
> > against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the
> > process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.
> >
> > TTFN :-)
> >
> > Johanne
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> > Bale
> > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re:
> >
> > Let me remind you.
> > Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King
> > of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the
> > descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,
> > so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
> > Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,
> > so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
> > reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would
> > she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
> > different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be
> > raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
> > I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of
> > the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor
> > usurpation.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:
> >
> >> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is
> > another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is
> > the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
> > Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO
> > much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other
> > human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future
> > generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And
> > Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of
> > all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history,
> > in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So
> > perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on
> > this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to
> > enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets
> > work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea of
> > making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work
> > done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
> > probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly
> > would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
> > satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible
> > guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I note that although his need for an heir was bordering on desperate, Richard never put forward his own bastard son, John. Honourable was how Richard lived and how Richard died...Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Basically the truth of the matter is that the Queen seldom.if ever, acts without the advice of her courtiers/advisors...Those days are long gone when a monarch had much say in what went on. The public seldom knows what goes on in the Royal head....Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal beyond death to Richard.
> > Which I admit I am.
> > It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.
> > De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light back in time.
> > Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH. Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From small acorns revolutions begin.
> > It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up some politicians first!!!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Paul -
> > > Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de
> > > jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who
> > > ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might
> > > have been de facto king but was not de jure king.
> > >
> > > Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British
> > > Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that
> > > such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy
> > > in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to
> > > be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a
> > > lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious
> > > ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own
> > > that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
> > > everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has
> > > been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think
> > > not! Or at least I hope not! :-)
> > >
> > > I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are
> > > problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
> > > bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
> > > service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to
> > > faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the
> > > current monarch, long may she reign.
> > >
> > > So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world
> > > about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon
> > > against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the
> > > process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.
> > >
> > > TTFN :-)
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> > > Bale
> > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re:
> > >
> > > Let me remind you.
> > > Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King
> > > of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the
> > > descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,
> > > so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
> > > Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,
> > > so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
> > > reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would
> > > she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
> > > different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be
> > > raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
> > > I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of
> > > the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor
> > > usurpation.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:
> > >
> > >> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is
> > > another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is
> > > the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
> > > Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO
> > > much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other
> > > human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future
> > > generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And
> > > Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of
> > > all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history,
> > > in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So
> > > perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on
> > > this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to
> > > enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets
> > > work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea of
> > > making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work
> > > done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
> > > probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly
> > > would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
> > > satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible
> > > guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

I wonder how much of it is because of the embarrassment that the Abbey would suffer if it turned out the bones were Roman girls.  Red faces all around ....



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012, 21:58
Subject: Re:

 
Basically the truth of the matter is that the Queen seldom.if ever, acts without the advice of her courtiers/advisors...Those days are long gone when a monarch had much say in what went on. The public seldom knows what goes on in the Royal head....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal beyond death to Richard.
> Which I admit I am.
> It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.
> De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light back in time.
> Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH. Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From small acorns revolutions begin.
> It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up some politicians first!!!
> Paul
>
>
> On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > Dear Paul -
> > Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de
> > jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who
> > ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might
> > have been de facto king but was not de jure king.
> >
> > Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British
> > Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that
> > such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy
> > in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to
> > be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a
> > lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious
> > ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own
> > that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
> > everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has
> > been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think
> > not! Or at least I hope not! :-)
> >
> > I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are
> > problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
> > bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
> > service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to
> > faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the
> > current monarch, long may she reign.
> >
> > So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world
> > about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon
> > against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the
> > process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.
> >
> > TTFN :-)
> >
> > Johanne
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> > Bale
> > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re:
> >
> > Let me remind you.
> > Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King
> > of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the
> > descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,
> > so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
> > Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,
> > so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
> > reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would
> > she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
> > different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be
> > raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
> > I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of
> > the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor
> > usurpation.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:
> >
> >> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is
> > another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is
> > the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
> > Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO
> > much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other
> > human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future
> > generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And
> > Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of
> > all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history,
> > in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So
> > perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on
> > this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to
> > enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets
> > work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea of
> > making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work
> > done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
> > probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly
> > would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
> > satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible
> > guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Do you not think that maybe as well they are thinking along the lines they would lose a major crowd puller...or am I being mean...?

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how much of it is because of the embarrassment that the Abbey would suffer if it turned out the bones were Roman girls.  Red faces all around ....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012, 21:58
> Subject: Re:
>
>  
> Basically the truth of the matter is that the Queen seldom.if ever, acts without the advice of her courtiers/advisors...Those days are long gone when a monarch had much say in what went on. The public seldom knows what goes on in the Royal head....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal beyond death to Richard.
> > Which I admit I am.
> > It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.
> > De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light back in time.
> > Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH. Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From small acorns revolutions begin.
> > It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up some politicians first!!!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Paul -
> > > Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de
> > > jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who
> > > ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might
> > > have been de facto king but was not de jure king.
> > >
> > > Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British
> > > Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that
> > > such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy
> > > in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to
> > > be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a
> > > lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious
> > > ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own
> > > that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
> > > everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has
> > > been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think
> > > not! Or at least I hope not! :-)
> > >
> > > I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are
> > > problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
> > > bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
> > > service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to
> > > faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the
> > > current monarch, long may she reign.
> > >
> > > So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world
> > > about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon
> > > against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the
> > > process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.
> > >
> > > TTFN :-)
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> > > Bale
> > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re:
> > >
> > > Let me remind you.
> > > Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King
> > > of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the
> > > descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,
> > > so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
> > > Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,
> > > so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
> > > reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would
> > > she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
> > > different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be
> > > raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
> > > I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of
> > > the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor
> > > usurpation.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:
> > >
> > >> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is
> > > another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is
> > > the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
> > > Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO
> > > much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other
> > > human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future
> > > generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And
> > > Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of
> > > all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history,
> > > in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So
> > > perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on
> > > this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to
> > > enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets
> > > work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea of
> > > making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work
> > > done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
> > > probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly
> > > would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
> > > satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible
> > > guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am I confusing things but is this not a 15th cent discussion group not
People magazine



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 5:15 PM
To:
Subject: Re:





Do you not think that maybe as well they are thinking along the lines they
would lose a major crowd puller...or am I being mean...?

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how much of it is because of the embarrassment that the Abbey
would suffer if it turned out the bones were Roman girls. Red faces all
around ....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012, 21:58
> Subject: Re:
>
> Â
> Basically the truth of the matter is that the Queen seldom.if ever, acts
without the advice of her courtiers/advisors...Those days are long gone when
a monarch had much say in what went on. The public seldom knows what goes on
in the Royal head....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal
beyond death to Richard.
> > Which I admit I am.
> > It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.
> > De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since
Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging
around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light
back in time.
> > Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a
kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH.
Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new
examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From
small acorns revolutions begin.
> > It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their
Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular
scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up
some politicians first!!!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Paul -
> > > Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also
"de
> > > jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for
instance who
> > > ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance)
might
> > > have been de facto king but was not de jure king.
> > >
> > > Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire
British
> > > Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest
that
> > > such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth
(bastardy
> > > in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone
since to
> > > be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at
least, as a
> > > lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's
glorious
> > > ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of
her own
> > > that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
> > > everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me
has
> > > been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I
think
> > > not! Or at least I hope not! :-)
> > >
> > > I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there
are
> > > problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
> > > bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
> > > service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in
regard to
> > > faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by
the
> > > current monarch, long may she reign.
> > >
> > > So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the
world
> > > about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a
bludgeon
> > > against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys).
Then the
> > > process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.
> > >
> > > TTFN :-)
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Paul Trevor
> > > Bale
> > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re:
> > >
> > > Let me remind you.
> > > Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto
rightful King
> > > of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor,
the
> > > descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another
branch,
> > > so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
> > > Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite
doubt,
> > > so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
> > > reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What
would
> > > she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
> > > different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would
be
> > > raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
> > > I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those
bastards of
> > > the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the
Tudor
> > > usurpation.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:
> > >
> > >> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end
result is
> > > another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for
Richard, is
> > > the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
> > > Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom
SO
> > > much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with
other
> > > human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and
future
> > > generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time.
And
> > > Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would
approve of
> > > all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to
history,
> > > in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are.
So
> > > perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work
on
> > > this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever,
to
> > > enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed.
Lets
> > > work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea
of
> > > making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating
work
> > > done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
> > > probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it
certainly
> > > would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
> > > satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a
terrible
> > > guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I wonder though, even if the Queen/her advisors thought it reasonable to examine the bones, the Abbey authorities would agree....I dont think they would....What would happen then...Who would have the final word on the matter.....Its not going to be an undertaking that would earn the Abbey much in Revenue...Eileen

--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I am I confusing things but is this not a 15th cent discussion group not
> People magazine
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 5:15 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re:
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you not think that maybe as well they are thinking along the lines they
> would lose a major crowd puller...or am I being mean...?
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how much of it is because of the embarrassment that the Abbey
> would suffer if it turned out the bones were Roman girls. Red faces all
> around ....
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012, 21:58
> > Subject: Re:
> >
> > Â
> > Basically the truth of the matter is that the Queen seldom.if ever, acts
> without the advice of her courtiers/advisors...Those days are long gone when
> a monarch had much say in what went on. The public seldom knows what goes on
> in the Royal head....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal
> beyond death to Richard.
> > > Which I admit I am.
> > > It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.
> > > De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since
> Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging
> around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light
> back in time.
> > > Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a
> kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH.
> Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new
> examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From
> small acorns revolutions begin.
> > > It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their
> Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular
> scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up
> some politicians first!!!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Paul -
> > > > Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also
> "de
> > > > jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for
> instance who
> > > > ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance)
> might
> > > > have been de facto king but was not de jure king.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire
> British
> > > > Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest
> that
> > > > such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth
> (bastardy
> > > > in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone
> since to
> > > > be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at
> least, as a
> > > > lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's
> glorious
> > > > ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of
> her own
> > > > that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
> > > > everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me
> has
> > > > been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I
> think
> > > > not! Or at least I hope not! :-)
> > > >
> > > > I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there
> are
> > > > problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
> > > > bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
> > > > service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in
> regard to
> > > > faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by
> the
> > > > current monarch, long may she reign.
> > > >
> > > > So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the
> world
> > > > about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a
> bludgeon
> > > > against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys).
> Then the
> > > > process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.
> > > >
> > > > TTFN :-)
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > or jltournier@
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Paul Trevor
> > > > Bale
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re:
> > > >
> > > > Let me remind you.
> > > > Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto
> rightful King
> > > > of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor,
> the
> > > > descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another
> branch,
> > > > so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
> > > > Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite
> doubt,
> > > > so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
> > > > reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What
> would
> > > > she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
> > > > different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would
> be
> > > > raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
> > > > I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those
> bastards of
> > > > the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the
> Tudor
> > > > usurpation.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end
> result is
> > > > another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for
> Richard, is
> > > > the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
> > > > Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom
> SO
> > > > much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with
> other
> > > > human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and
> future
> > > > generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time.
> And
> > > > Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would
> approve of
> > > > all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to
> history,
> > > > in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are.
> So
> > > > perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work
> on
> > > > this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever,
> to
> > > > enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed.
> Lets
> > > > work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea
> of
> > > > making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating
> work
> > > > done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
> > > > probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it
> certainly
> > > > would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
> > > > satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a
> terrible
> > > > guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Paul -



I certainly don't object to your devotion to Richard, Paul. And I would say
it's shared, to a greater or lesser extent, by everyone here. But although
you may have intended irony in your last post, it's hard to pick up on the
printed (or digital) page, unless you use emoticons. (But I've tried to use
them here, and they turn into capital letters for some reason.) Other people
on this Forum have noted that Thos. More's *Richard III* just drips with
irony, and they are probably right, but obviously most people who have read
it over the last 500 years or so missed the irony, and likewise I missed
yours.

Anyway, personally I can't see any reason that allowing testing of the bones
in the urn should risk casting doubt on the present queen's legitimacy,
regardless of whose (or what's) bones they are. So, if one wants to have
them tested, I would suggest that the best course of action is to petition
that it be done and/or use whatever channels through the aristocracy one has
to influence the desired outcome and not to make intemperate noises which
really have no relevance to the merits of the case and may be perceived as
pejorative nonetheless.



TTFN J



Johanne



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 5:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re:





Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal beyond
death to Richard.
Which I admit I am.
It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.
De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since
Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging
around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light
back in time.
Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a kernel
of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH. Anything that
could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new examination of the
bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From small acorns
revolutions begin.
It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their
Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular
scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up
some politicians first!!!
Paul

you are right george. this is a 15 cent discussion and we are all putting our 2 cents worth of gossip in. we do stray from time to time.

please feel free to bring us back on track with a tantalising 15thC tidbit.

--- On Mon, 10/8/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:

From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
Subject: RE:
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 5:16 PM
















 









I am I confusing things but is this not a 15th cent discussion group not

People magazine



From:

[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB

Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 5:15 PM

To:

Subject: Re:



Do you not think that maybe as well they are thinking along the lines they

would lose a major crowd puller...or am I being mean...?



--- In

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams

<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

>

> I wonder how much of it is because of the embarrassment that the Abbey

would suffer if it turned out the bones were Roman girls. Red faces all

around ....

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>

> To:

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012, 21:58

> Subject: Re:

>

> Â

> Basically the truth of the matter is that the Queen seldom.if ever, acts

without the advice of her courtiers/advisors...Those days are long gone when

a monarch had much say in what went on. The public seldom knows what goes on

in the Royal head....Eileen

>

> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale

<paul.bale@> wrote:

> >

> > Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal

beyond death to Richard.

> > Which I admit I am.

> > It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.

> > De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since

Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging

around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light

back in time.

> > Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a

kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH.

Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new

examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From

small acorns revolutions begin.

> > It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their

Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular

scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up

some politicians first!!!

> > Paul

> >

> >

> > On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Paul -

> > > Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also

"de

> > > jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for

instance who

> > > ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance)

might

> > > have been de facto king but was not de jure king.

> > >

> > > Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire

British

> > > Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest

that

> > > such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth

(bastardy

> > > in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone

since to

> > > be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at

least, as a

> > > lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's

glorious

> > > ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of

her own

> > > that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,

> > > everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me

has

> > > been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I

think

> > > not! Or at least I hope not! :-)

> > >

> > > I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there

are

> > > problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the

> > > bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of

> > > service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in

regard to

> > > faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by

the

> > > current monarch, long may she reign.

> > >

> > > So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the

world

> > > about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a

bludgeon

> > > against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys).

Then the

> > > process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.

> > >

> > > TTFN :-)

> > >

> > > Johanne

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > > Johanne L. Tournier

> > >

> > > Email - jltournier60@

> > > or jltournier@

> > >

> > > "With God, all things are possible."

> > > - Jesus of Nazareth

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

Paul Trevor

> > > Bale

> > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM

> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> > > Subject: Re:

> > >

> > > Let me remind you.

> > > Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto

rightful King

> > > of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor,

the

> > > descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another

branch,

> > > so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.

> > > Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite

doubt,

> > > so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her

> > > reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What

would

> > > she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a

> > > different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would

be

> > > raised in public again, and those questions would be many.

> > > I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those

bastards of

> > > the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the

Tudor

> > > usurpation.

> > > Paul

> > >

> > > On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:

> > >

> > >> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end

result is

> > > another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for

Richard, is

> > > the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that

> > > Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom

SO

> > > much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with

other

> > > human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and

future

> > > generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time.

And

> > > Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would

approve of

> > > all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to

history,

> > > in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are.

So

> > > perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work

on

> > > this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever,

to

> > > enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed.

Lets

> > > work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea

of

> > > making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating

work

> > > done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we

> > > probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it

certainly

> > > would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just

> > > satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a

terrible

> > > guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.

> > >>

> > >> ------------------------------------

> > >>

> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>

> > >

> > > Richard Liveth Yet!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------------------------------

> > >

> > > Yahoo! Groups Links

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------------------------------

> > >

> > > Yahoo! Groups Links

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Richard Liveth Yet!

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

not at all. many churches for eons have used "items and relics" as crowd pullers.
as some on stated a few days ago..christ overturned the moneychangers tables. worship before profit.

--- On Mon, 10/8/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re:
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 5:15 PM
















 









Do you not think that maybe as well they are thinking along the lines they would lose a major crowd puller...or am I being mean...?



--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

>

> I wonder how much of it is because of the embarrassment that the Abbey would suffer if it turned out the bones were Roman girls.  Red faces all around ....

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>

> To:

> Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012, 21:58

> Subject: Re:

>

>  

> Basically the truth of the matter is that the Queen seldom.if ever, acts without the advice of her courtiers/advisors...Those days are long gone when a monarch had much say in what went on. The public seldom knows what goes on in the Royal head....Eileen

>

> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:

> >

> > Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal beyond death to Richard.

> > Which I admit I am.

> > It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.

> > De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light back in time.

> > Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH. Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From small acorns revolutions begin.

> > It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up some politicians first!!!

> > Paul

> >

> >

> > On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Paul -

> > > Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de

> > > jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who

> > > ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might

> > > have been de facto king but was not de jure king.

> > >

> > > Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British

> > > Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that

> > > such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy

> > > in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to

> > > be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a

> > > lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious

> > > ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own

> > > that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,

> > > everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has

> > > been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think

> > > not! Or at least I hope not! :-)

> > >

> > > I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are

> > > problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the

> > > bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of

> > > service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to

> > > faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the

> > > current monarch, long may she reign.

> > >

> > > So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world

> > > about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon

> > > against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the

> > > process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.

> > >

> > > TTFN :-)

> > >

> > > Johanne

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > > Johanne L. Tournier

> > >

> > > Email - jltournier60@

> > > or jltournier@

> > >

> > > "With God, all things are possible."

> > > - Jesus of Nazareth

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor

> > > Bale

> > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM

> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> > > Subject: Re:

> > >

> > > Let me remind you.

> > > Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King

> > > of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the

> > > descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,

> > > so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.

> > > Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,

> > > so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her

> > > reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would

> > > she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a

> > > different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be

> > > raised in public again, and those questions would be many.

> > > I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of

> > > the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor

> > > usurpation.

> > > Paul

> > >

> > > On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:

> > >

> > >> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is

> > > another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is

> > > the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that

> > > Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO

> > > much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other

> > > human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future

> > > generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And

> > > Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of

> > > all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history,

> > > in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So

> > > perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on

> > > this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to

> > > enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets

> > > work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea of

> > > making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work

> > > done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we

> > > probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly

> > > would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just

> > > satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible

> > > guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.

> > >>

> > >> ------------------------------------

> > >>

> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>

> > >

> > > Richard Liveth Yet!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------------------------------

> > >

> > > Yahoo! Groups Links

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------------------------------

> > >

> > > Yahoo! Groups Links

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Richard Liveth Yet!

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Basically the truth of the matter is that the Queen seldom.if ever, acts without the advice of her courtiers/advisors...Those days are long gone when a monarch had much say in what went on. The public seldom knows what goes on in the Royal head....Eileen

Carol responds:
Unless she chooses to *appear* to parachute into the Olympics opening ceremonies. Love her for that!

Carol

Paul
I have posted in your message below and thank you as the voice of reason for echoing my sentiments exactly. I've also given this thread a new name.
Elaine

-----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re:
>
> Let me remind you.
> Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King
> of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the
> descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,
> so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
> Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,
> so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
> reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would
> she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
> different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be
> raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
> I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of
> the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor
> usurpation.
> Paul








--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Seems quite a few of you see me just as the fanatical Yorkist, loyal beyond death to Richard.
> Which I admit I am.
> It also seems that some of you do not get my irony.
> De facto and De jure yes Johanne. I suggested that the royal line since Richard is tainted in numerous ways, and they would not want anybody digging around their dirty laundry, so will be against anything throwing a light back in time.
> Thought I might be whipping up a minor storm, but there may well be a kernel of truth in my remarks when you consider the advisors to HRH. Anything that could engender discussion on legitimacy, as this or a new examination of the bones in the Urn would, endangers her position. From small acorns revolutions begin.
> It was after all a diamond necklace that turned the French against their Queen, even though she was guiltless of any involvement in that particular scandal. Queens and guillotines dance well together! :-) Though I'd line up some politicians first!!!
> Paul
>
>
> On 8 Oct 2012, at 11:42, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > Dear Paul -
> > Based on your premise, Richard was not just "de facto" king but also "de
> > jure" king - that is "king in law" or "lawful king." A king for instance who
> > ruled but was never anointed and crowned(like Edward V, for instance) might
> > have been de facto king but was not de jure king.
> >
> > Regarding your conclusion that the results might show the entire British
> > Royal descendants since Richard to have been bastards, may I suggest that
> > such a proposition is hyperbolic. There may be a kernel of truth (bastardy
> > in the line of Henry VII and of Elizabeth) but to declare everyone since to
> > be illegitimate does not seem reasonable. I say this in part, at least, as a
> > lady who while having been regaled as a child with stories of one's glorious
> > ancestors subsequently found on doing some genealogical research of her own
> > that her g-g-grandfather was illegitimate! Oh the ignominy! But, hey,
> > everyone in the family since and in all the other lines leading to me has
> > been produced in lawful wedlock. So does that make me a bastard?? I think
> > not! Or at least I hope not! :-)
> >
> > I believe that in every royal dynasty, if it lasts long enough, there are
> > problems with the succession. But what counts in the end is not the
> > bloodline (problematical) but the coronation, the vows, the promise of
> > service, and the anointing, the symbol of selection by God. And in regard to
> > faithful service, you could not ask for more than has been given by the
> > current monarch, long may she reign.
> >
> > So, my conclusion is - celebrate Richard, do one's best to educate the world
> > about the truth of himself and his reign, but don't use that as a bludgeon
> > against any of the subsequent rulers (except maybe the two Henrys). Then the
> > process should not be a seen as a threat to the current status quo.
> >
> > TTFN :-)
> >
> > Johanne
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> > Bale
> > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:09 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re:
> >
> > Let me remind you.
> > Titulus Regius has been authenticated, so Richard was de facto rightful King
> > of England, and the children of Edward IV bastards. So Henry Tudor, the
> > descendant of a bastard branch married a bastard daughter of another branch,
> > so was not legally monarch, nor were his children.
> > Recognising this puts the entire royal family since 1485 in definite doubt,
> > so HRH will not be willing to prove this correct. Hence I imagine her
> > reluctance to allow the urn to be reopened and properly examined. What would
> > she say when they are proved to be bones of a different sex and from a
> > different age? The questions about the legality of our monarchy would be
> > raised in public again, and those questions would be many.
> > I would hate seeing King Richard laid to rest next to all those bastards of
> > the House of Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover that are the result of the Tudor
> > usurpation.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 7 Oct 2012, at 21:01, Carol Darling wrote:
> >
> >> It sounds like the Queen is the ultimate authority, and the end result is
> > another proper religious burial in a more respectable place for Richard, is
> > the ultimate goal, for him or for any human being. I would argue that
> > Richard being such a significant historical figure and one around whom SO
> > much controversy exists, then the precedent is the work done with other
> > human archeological findings, that help us educate ourselves and future
> > generations. Historical figures have their significant place in time. And
> > Richards is not completely and fairly, written. I know he would approve of
> > all of our efforts for generations back, to be fair to him, and to history,
> > in a broader sense. He sounds like a man of reason, as we hope we are. So
> > perhaps someone in ours or another Group, needs to quickly get to work on
> > this...petitioning the Queen and the planning of retaining whatever, to
> > enable the complete investigation and other ideas, to be completed. Lets
> > work FAST !!!! What is the Group input...? By the way..I love the idea of
> > making a full head/facial portrait from a skull. Ive seen fascinating work
> > done by experts in this field. I guess thats asking too much..and we
> > probably won't have the time above ground for his remains, but it certainly
> > would be wonderful for us all. "outsiders" would say...oh, thats just
> > satisfying your "group", and we don't even know if he was not a terrible
> > guy. I don't think we are going to "win" all of our battles.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Personally, I prefer the new term of invective "sonofaBush".

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
>
> Karen

Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, has two daughters and one son, Alexander Patrick Gregers Richard Windsor, Earl of Ulster. Alexander has a daughter and a son, Xan Richard Anders Windsor, Lord Culloden.

Whether the Earl of Ulster is interested in Richard III I know not. Lord Culloden, at the age of 5, is presumably too young as yet, although the fact that both male heirs have the name Richard among their given names might be a good sign.

Richard G

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Anyway, I'm hoping that the current Duke of Gloucester will persuade someone in the royal family to look into the matter. Does anyone know if he has descendants and whether they're also interested in Richard III?
>
> Carol
>