Re: Essex claims

From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>


//snip//
Robert, Earl of Essex (x.1601) was a 2345.
(descended from Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley and
Thomas of Woodstock)
//snip//

I never knew that about the Earl of Essex. It puts the events leading up to
his execution in a completely different light. Is there any evidence E1 was
considering him as a possible heir? Or would it be better to put it down to
her habit of keeping her options open, so to speak?
I've typed a new heading for this query so it can be tossed unread.
Doug

I think it's a wonderful example of what historical perspective can do.  To us, Essex seems an overweening fool doomed to failure.  For a monarch whose grandfather had taken the throne, against all expectation, by right of conquest, he may have appeared very different.

I'm not aware of Elizabeth actively considering anyone as an heir.  There's even some doubt as to how much the nomination of James VI was an invention of Cecil's.  Though I could be wrong about this, as I've not looked closely at the later Tudors for some years.


Jonathan


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012, 16:43
Subject: Re: Re:Essex claims


 

From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>

//snip//
Robert, Earl of Essex (x.1601) was a 2345.
(descended from Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley and
Thomas of Woodstock)
//snip//

I never knew that about the Earl of Essex. It puts the events leading up to
his execution in a completely different light. Is there any evidence E1 was
considering him as a possible heir? Or would it be better to put it down to
her habit of keeping her options open, so to speak?
I've typed a new heading for this query so it can be tossed unread.
Doug

I don't think so - by the time of Essex's stepfather's death, James seems to have been lined up already.

By the way, quoting him as a "2345" was from memory and he was a "245" (no Beaufort-Neville element). Thomas Stafford was definitely a "2345". Forum files will show this.

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re:Essex claims




From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>

//snip//
Robert, Earl of Essex (x.1601) was a 2345.
(descended from Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley and
Thomas of Woodstock)
//snip//

I never knew that about the Earl of Essex. It puts the events leading up to
his execution in a completely different light. Is there any evidence E1 was
considering him as a possible heir? Or would it be better to put it down to
her habit of keeping her options open, so to speak?
I've typed a new heading for this query so it can be tossed unread.
Doug

Lets get Richard iii sorted out before we move on to a second can of worms Richardonians should be ecstatic about the current interest in the 500 year old arguments surrounding the Plantaginate structure and House of Tudor, without extending the plot to Elizabeth.
I find the whole facts truly amazing not only the battlefield of Bosworth may have been misplaced but we had "lost R3" only hopefully to have been found again, shame that Shakespeare cannot wright Richard III part 2 without his Tudor influence? Has anyone any thoughts on what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?

On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

> I think it's a wonderful example of what historical perspective can do. To us, Essex seems an overweening fool doomed to failure. For a monarch whose grandfather had taken the throne, against all expectation, by right of conquest, he may have appeared very different.
>
> I'm not aware of Elizabeth actively considering anyone as an heir. There's even some doubt as to how much the nomination of James VI was an invention of Cecil's. Though I could be wrong about this, as I've not looked closely at the later Tudors for some years.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012, 16:43
> Subject: Re: Re:Essex claims
>
>
>
>
> From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
>
> //snip//
> Robert, Earl of Essex (x.1601) was a 2345.
> (descended from Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley and
> Thomas of Woodstock)
> //snip//
>
> I never knew that about the Earl of Essex. It puts the events leading up to
> his execution in a completely different light. Is there any evidence E1 was
> considering him as a possible heir? Or would it be better to put it down to
> her habit of keeping her options open, so to speak?
> I've typed a new heading for this query so it can be tossed unread.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>

Lets just let posters make their own minds up to what they post or
not....as long as it is in reason. So what if sometime messages do stray
off topic......There is always the option of not reading the messages that
have no interest to oneself....Eileen

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>wrote:

> Lets get Richard iii sorted out before we move on to a second can of worms
> Richardonians should be ecstatic about the current interest in the 500
> year old arguments surrounding the Plantaginate structure and House of
> Tudor, without extending the plot to Elizabeth.
> I find the whole facts truly amazing not only the battlefield of Bosworth
> may have been misplaced but we had "lost R3" only hopefully to have been
> found again, shame that Shakespeare cannot wright Richard III part 2
> without his Tudor influence? Has anyone any thoughts on what happens if
> the DNA is inconclusive?
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> > I think it's a wonderful example of what historical perspective can do.
> To us, Essex seems an overweening fool doomed to failure. For a monarch
> whose grandfather had taken the throne, against all expectation, by right
> of conquest, he may have appeared very different.
> >
> > I'm not aware of Elizabeth actively considering anyone as an heir.
> There's even some doubt as to how much the nomination of James VI was an
> invention of Cecil's. Though I could be wrong about this, as I've not
> looked closely at the later Tudors for some years.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012, 16:43
> > Subject: Re: Re:Essex claims
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
> >
> > //snip//
> > Robert, Earl of Essex (x.1601) was a 2345.
> > (descended from Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley and
> > Thomas of Woodstock)
> > //snip//
> >
> > I never knew that about the Earl of Essex. It puts the events leading up
> to
> > his execution in a completely different light. Is there any evidence E1
> was
> > considering him as a possible heir? Or would it be better to put it down
> to
> > her habit of keeping her options open, so to speak?
> > I've typed a new heading for this query so it can be tossed unread.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I'll defer to Dr. King on that... she said some cogent but pithy things about the results, what they might mean, what the options are, and how the interpretation is not necessarily dependent on a total match. I'm looking forward to the announcement; it seems as though the Grey Friars warrior is in the best possible hands.

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Lets get Richard iii sorted out before we move on to a second can of worms Richardonians should be ecstatic about the current interest in the 500 year old arguments surrounding the Plantaginate structure and House of Tudor, without extending the plot to Elizabeth.
> I find the whole facts truly amazing not only the battlefield of Bosworth may have been misplaced but we had "lost R3" only hopefully to have been found again, shame that Shakespeare cannot wright Richard III part 2 without his Tudor influence? Has anyone any thoughts on what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?

--- In , Eileen B <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Lets just let posters make their own minds up to what they post or
> not....as long as it is in reason. So what if sometime messages do stray
> off topic......There is always the option of not reading the messages that
> have no interest to oneself....Eileen



I'll second that. Another group I belong to has a very strict policy re what is and is not on topic. The moderator has come galloping in swinging the Off Topic! cudgel and snuffed out what I thought were very interesting, potentially fascinating excursions into information someone brought up. I can't count the interesting things I've learned in this group, some of it quite off topic.

Katy

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Essex claims


Lets get Richard iii sorted out before we move on to a second can of worms
Richardonians should be ecstatic about the current interest in the 500 year
old arguments surrounding the Plantaginate structure and House of Tudor,
without extending the plot to Elizabeth.//snip//

Just thought I'd send this as a sort of over-view of how I've come to
approach R3 and this particular period of history.
I used the phrase "this particular period of history" because, to me, it
appears that the TWoR, R3's reputation and the Tudor line that followed R3
are all directly connected to the deposition of R2 by Bolingbroke. It's also
my opinion that the growth of Parliamentary influence/control over the
national government of England was directly related to the quarrels between
the various magnates descended from E3 and therefore I view E1 as the last
late medieval monarch of England.
In other words, and with the usual caveats applied, how E1 approached
governing England was quite likely very little different from how the
various monarchs between R2 and Mary governed. There's an awful lot of
information available on E1's reign, especially on how she governed,
maximizing the use of her Council and calling in Parliament when needed,
just as English monarchs had been doing since R2, except there's a lot more
information about E1's activities than many of her predecessors.
In other words, the more we know for certain about how E1 reigned AND ruled,
the greater our chances of understanding how her predecessors may have done
something similar. Of course, everything done during E1's reign can't be
analogised (?) backwards, but I would think that much can or can at least be
used as a guide.
Anyway, that's my reason for showing interest in topics not strictly related
to R3. I hope it makes sense, because I HAVE been known not to...

Douglas
Can you please finish this sentence off, you've got me on tenterhooks!
I'll post a reply later.
Elaine

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Essex claims
>
>
> Lets get Richard iii sorted out before we move on to a second can of worms
> Richardonians should be ecstatic about the current interest in the 500 year
> old arguments surrounding the Plantaginate structure and House of Tudor,
> without extending the plot to Elizabeth.//snip//
>
> Just thought I'd send this as a sort of over-view of how I've come to
> approach R3 and this particular period of history.
> I used the phrase "this particular period of history" because, to me, it
> appears that the TWoR, R3's reputation and the Tudor line that followed R3
> are all directly connected to the deposition of R2 by Bolingbroke. It's also
> my opinion that the growth of Parliamentary influence/control over the
> national government of England was directly related to the quarrels between
> the various magnates descended from E3 and therefore I view E1 as the last
> late medieval monarch of England.
> In other words, and with the usual caveats applied, how E1 approached
> governing England was quite likely very little different from how the
> various monarchs between R2 and Mary governed. There's an awful lot of
> information available on E1's reign, especially on how she governed,
> maximizing the use of her Council and calling in Parliament when needed,
> just as English monarchs had been doing since R2, except there's a lot more
> information about E1's activities than many of her predecessors.
> In other words, the more we know for certain about how E1 reigned AND ruled,
> the greater our chances of understanding how her predecessors may have done
> something similar. Of course, everything done during E1's reign can't be
> analogised (?) backwards, but I would think that much can or can at least be
> used as a guide.
> Anyway, that's my reason for showing interest in topics not strictly related
> to R3. I hope it makes sense, because I HAVE been known not to...
>

Eileen B wrote:
> >
> > Lets just let posters make their own minds up to what they post or
> > not....as long as it is in reason. So what if sometime messages do stray off topic......There is always the option of not reading the messages that have no interest to oneself....Eileen


Carol responds:

That strategy will work as long as we remember to change the subject heading.

Carol

Perhaps the answer is ..that you need to finish off the sentence, it would lead to a whole new form of .....
On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:21 PM, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...> wrote:

> Douglas
> Can you please finish this sentence off, you've got me on tenterhooks!
> I'll post a reply later.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: Essex claims
> >
> >
> > Lets get Richard iii sorted out before we move on to a second can of worms
> > Richardonians should be ecstatic about the current interest in the 500 year
> > old arguments surrounding the Plantaginate structure and House of Tudor,
> > without extending the plot to Elizabeth.//snip//
> >
> > Just thought I'd send this as a sort of over-view of how I've come to
> > approach R3 and this particular period of history.
> > I used the phrase "this particular period of history" because, to me, it
> > appears that the TWoR, R3's reputation and the Tudor line that followed R3
> > are all directly connected to the deposition of R2 by Bolingbroke. It's also
> > my opinion that the growth of Parliamentary influence/control over the
> > national government of England was directly related to the quarrels between
> > the various magnates descended from E3 and therefore I view E1 as the last
> > late medieval monarch of England.
> > In other words, and with the usual caveats applied, how E1 approached
> > governing England was quite likely very little different from how the
> > various monarchs between R2 and Mary governed. There's an awful lot of
> > information available on E1's reign, especially on how she governed,
> > maximizing the use of her Council and calling in Parliament when needed,
> > just as English monarchs had been doing since R2, except there's a lot more
> > information about E1's activities than many of her predecessors.
> > In other words, the more we know for certain about how E1 reigned AND ruled,
> > the greater our chances of understanding how her predecessors may have done
> > something similar. Of course, everything done during E1's reign can't be
> > analogised (?) backwards, but I would think that much can or can at least be
> > used as a guide.
> > Anyway, that's my reason for showing interest in topics not strictly related
> > to R3. I hope it makes sense, because I HAVE been known not to...
> >
>
>
>

Hi, Carol, Eileen & Everyone -



As a sometimes guilty party on all counts, I would like to echo your
sentiments. I personally much prefer latitude on what one can post - ideally
on most lists I've been on one should preface the subject line with "OT" for
"Off Topic." Then people can easily choose whether or not to read them. But
I find that some things that are "off topic" actually are related to the
topic at hand - personally I find the discussion on the present-day monarchy
and the Royal Family to be at least a "related" discussion, not totally Off
Topic, even though the discussion at times may be a bit gossipy.



The other thing I want to mention is about remembering to snip earlier
messages when one is replying to them. I have seen some emails that have
trailed a lengthy train of previous emails, none of which is necessary to
understand the sense of the new email. In the "old days," we were supposed
to trim messages to "save bandwidth." I don't think that's as much of a
concern nowadays, but I think it's still good form to just put as much of a
previous message as is necessary to get the sense of the context.
Personally, I usually quote the entire message I'm replying to, just for
simplicity's sake, or more, like those below, if they are short, but if they
are lengthy I do try to remember to cut the messages before the last one.



Just a thought,



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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











From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:34 PM
To:
Subject: Off-topic posts (Was: Essex claims)

Eileen B wrote:
> >
> > Lets just let posters make their own minds up to what they post or
> > not....as long as it is in reason. So what if sometime messages do stray
off topic......There is always the option of not reading the messages that
have no interest to oneself....Eileen

Carol responds:

That strategy will work as long as we remember to change the subject
heading.

Carol

Hi Johanne....the specific message that I was referring to had been clearly named in the subject box....It is beyond me why people read messages that hold no interest in them and then whinge....Eileen

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol, Eileen & Everyone -
>
>
>
> As a sometimes guilty party on all counts, I would like to echo your
> sentiments. I personally much prefer latitude on what one can post - ideally
> on most lists I've been on one should preface the subject line with "OT" for
> "Off Topic." Then people can easily choose whether or not to read them. But
> I find that some things that are "off topic" actually are related to the
> topic at hand - personally I find the discussion on the present-day monarchy
> and the Royal Family to be at least a "related" discussion, not totally Off
> Topic, even though the discussion at times may be a bit gossipy.
>
>
>
> The other thing I want to mention is about remembering to snip earlier
> messages when one is replying to them. I have seen some emails that have
> trailed a lengthy train of previous emails, none of which is necessary to
> understand the sense of the new email. In the "old days," we were supposed
> to trim messages to "save bandwidth." I don't think that's as much of a
> concern nowadays, but I think it's still good form to just put as much of a
> previous message as is necessary to get the sense of the context.
> Personally, I usually quote the entire message I'm replying to, just for
> simplicity's sake, or more, like those below, if they are short, but if they
> are lengthy I do try to remember to cut the messages before the last one.
>
>
>
> Just a thought,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:34 PM
> To:
> Subject: Off-topic posts (Was: Essex claims)
>
> Eileen B wrote:
> > >
> > > Lets just let posters make their own minds up to what they post or
> > > not....as long as it is in reason. So what if sometime messages do stray
> off topic......There is always the option of not reading the messages that
> have no interest to oneself....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That strategy will work as long as we remember to change the subject
> heading.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Eileen -

I did not intend anything in my email to specifically apply to you (or to
Carol, for that matter) except for the part where I wrote that I agreed with
what you had written. I was adding my bit to Carol's comment about changing
the subject line to add about maybe putting "OT" in the subject line (a
courtesy to those that want to screen in advance what they read) and editing
the previous message(s). But I intended them to be general comments to more
or less everyone, since I know I'm as guilty as anyone here for sometimes
being sloppy in the Netiquette department. I hope that clears up any
misunderstanding!



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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







From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: And don't forget to snip! (was RE:
Off-topic posts)





Hi Johanne....the specific message that I was referring to had been clearly
named in the subject box....It is beyond me why people read messages that
hold no interest in them and then whinge....Eileen

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbmt
kbTMyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMzUwMDU1MjYw> New Files 3


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcWVkOHZiB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MDA1NTI2MA--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZGlocDRyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUwMDU1MjYw>
Yahoo! Groups

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

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=16850/stime=1350055260/nc1=5008814/nc2=3848621/nc3=4025321>

Oh no Johanne...no misunderstanding...I was just making a comment on why I had posted my earlier message....no prob...:0) Eileen
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen -
>
> I did not intend anything in my email to specifically apply to you (or to
> Carol, for that matter) except for the part where I wrote that I agreed with
> what you had written. I was adding my bit to Carol's comment about changing
> the subject line to add about maybe putting "OT" in the subject line (a
> courtesy to those that want to screen in advance what they read) and editing
> the previous message(s). But I intended them to be general comments to more
> or less everyone, since I know I'm as guilty as anyone here for sometimes
> being sloppy in the Netiquette department. I hope that clears up any
> misunderstanding!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: And don't forget to snip! (was RE:
> Off-topic posts)
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Johanne....the specific message that I was referring to had been clearly
> named in the subject box....It is beyond me why people read messages that
> hold no interest in them and then whinge....Eileen
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbmt
> kbTMyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMzUwMDU1MjYw> New Files 3
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcWVkOHZiB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MDA1NTI2MA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZGlocDRyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUwMDU1MjYw>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =16850/stime=1350055260/nc1=5008814/nc2=3848621/nc3=4025321>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
<snip> I was adding my bit to Carol's comment about changing
> the subject line to add about maybe putting "OT" in the subject line (a courtesy to those that want to screen in advance what they read) and editing the previous message(s). But I intended them to be general comments to more or less everyone, since I know I'm as guilty as anyone here for sometimes being sloppy in the Netiquette department. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding!

Carol responds:

Yes, that was my intention, too--just a general comment that it's sometimes hard to screen out the posts we don't want to read because topics tend to wander and the subject line can be misleading if we forget to change it. And, of course, I'm as guilty as anyone else of forgetting.

Carol, who avoids the long, trailing posts that Johann was speaking of in the snipped portion by quoting only the relevant post or posts

Yes...I agree on that...I usually delete the parts of the message I am replying to that are not relevant to my reply....But snipping would be easier I agree...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> <snip> I was adding my bit to Carol's comment about changing
> > the subject line to add about maybe putting "OT" in the subject line (a courtesy to those that want to screen in advance what they read) and editing the previous message(s). But I intended them to be general comments to more or less everyone, since I know I'm as guilty as anyone here for sometimes being sloppy in the Netiquette department. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, that was my intention, too--just a general comment that it's sometimes hard to screen out the posts we don't want to read because topics tend to wander and the subject line can be misleading if we forget to change it. And, of course, I'm as guilty as anyone else of forgetting.
>
> Carol, who avoids the long, trailing posts that Johann was speaking of in the snipped portion by quoting only the relevant post or posts
>

That is snipping isnt it....?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes...I agree on that...I usually delete the parts of the message I am replying to that are not relevant to my reply....But snipping would be easier I agree...Eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > <snip> I was adding my bit to Carol's comment about changing
> > > the subject line to add about maybe putting "OT" in the subject line (a courtesy to those that want to screen in advance what they read) and editing the previous message(s). But I intended them to be general comments to more or less everyone, since I know I'm as guilty as anyone here for sometimes being sloppy in the Netiquette department. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Yes, that was my intention, too--just a general comment that it's sometimes hard to screen out the posts we don't want to read because topics tend to wander and the subject line can be misleading if we forget to change it. And, of course, I'm as guilty as anyone else of forgetting.
> >
> > Carol, who avoids the long, trailing posts that Johann was speaking of in the snipped portion by quoting only the relevant post or posts
> >
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: Essex claims


> Douglas
> Can you please finish this sentence off, you've got me on tenterhooks!
> I'll post a reply later.
> Elaine
>
Elaine, I'm assuming you're refering to my last sentence? If so, I was
trying to be deprecatory about my ability to clearly make a point, that's
what the three periods were for. Sorry if it confused you.
Doug

snip// Anyway, that's my reason for showing interest in topics not strictly
related to R3. I hope it makes sense, because I HAVE been known not to...
------------------------------------

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Essex claims
>
>
> > Douglas
> > Can you please finish this sentence off, you've got me on tenterhooks!
> > I'll post a reply later.
> > Elaine
> >
> Elaine, I'm assuming you're refering to my last sentence? If so, I was
> trying to be deprecatory about my ability to clearly make a point, that's
> what the three periods were for. Sorry if it confused you.
> Doug

Thanks for for reply. This is my response:

>>>snip>>>
>Just thought I'd send this as a sort of over-view of how I've come to
approach R3 and this particular period of history.
I used the phrase "this particular period of history" because, to me, it
appears that the TWoR, R3's reputation and the Tudor line that followed R3
are all directly connected to the deposition of R2 by Bolingbroke.


I agree that TWOR and the events leading to RIII and the Tudors can be traced back to the events of 1399 and the deposition of Richard II. Actually, that is one thing Shakespeare does get right. Once you depose the rightful king there is no turning back and the natural order of things will/can never be the same. The blame for this lies with Bolingbroke and the Lancastrian line.

There were many factors for WOTR; the breakdown in law and order and lack of stability from Henry VI's inability to rule effectively; the continued losses in France together with secret agreements following Henry's marriage to Margaret of Anjou which angered the anti-French faction headed by Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester and then Richard, Duke of York. The war with France had bankrupted the country and there was also the King's inability to rule effectively through lack of interest - he left the running of the country to his minister, Somerset, and also his bouts of illness (some sort of catatonic state similar to that of his Maternal grandfather). There was also the nobility who wielded immense power and were able to carry great influence throughout the areas of the country they controlled. For example, the Percy's and the Neville's in the North, were continually in dispute over lands and titles which was replicated by other families in other parts of England and Wales.


>>>>snip
It's also my opinion that the growth of Parliamentary influence/control over the
national government of England was directly related to the quarrels between
the various magnates descended from E3 and therefore I view E1 as the last
late medieval monarch of England.

Not sure I agree with this as my take would be that there was growing pressure from sections of the population, such as in religious matters from those who wished to worship in their own way, This led eventually to independents, Congregationalists, levellers, puritans etc; all a growing protest against the ruling establishment, which eventually led to the Civil War. Coupled with this were James I and Charles I, who both believed in their divine right to rule and tried to rule without recourse to Parliament, except when they needed to raise money. The escalating conflict between both parties led to the Civil War.
The beginning of a constitutional monarchy is seen when Charles II returns in 1660 after the Commonwealth period. What do you think?
Elaine

----- Original Message -----
From: "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: TWOR and

//snip//
Not sure I agree with this as my take would be that there was growing
pressure from sections of the population, such as in religious matters from
those who wished to worship in their own way, This led eventually to
independents, Congregationalists, levellers, puritans etc; all a growing
protest against the ruling establishment, which eventually led to the Civil
War. Coupled with this were James I and Charles I, who both believed in
their divine right to rule and tried to rule without recourse to
Parliament, except when they needed to raise money. The escalating conflict
between both parties led to the Civil War.
The beginning of a constitutional monarchy is seen when Charles II returns
in 1660 after the Commonwealth period. What do you think?
Elaine

My view is that the various monarchs and members of the nobility opened,
what turned out for them, to be a can of worms regarding the use of
Parliament during TWoR.
It seems to me that Parliament was used to, at least partially, validate
claims to the throne and at times to shore up those reigns by "proving" that
the monarch, or his supporters, had the support of the people of the Kingdom
as demonstrated by their support in Parliament. Sort of a circular logic,
especially when one considers how MPs were chosen.
The result, I think, was to give Parliament an overall standing in the
country that it hadn't really possessed before. More importantly, I believe,
it institutionalized the use of Parliament as being necessary, although in a
definitely subordinate role, for the normal governing of the kingdom;
something it just hadn't been before. Once Parliament became a factor in the
governing of the realm, that factor was made use of by those who made up the
"ruling classes"; a far greater number of people than simply those who
constituted the "nobility." Taking into account the fact that good
proportion of the nobles usually relied on by the monarch to help rule the
kingdom disputed your right the throne, showing you have support throughout
the kingdom, by whatever means, becomes a necessity.
It's this line of reasoning that has led me to the conclusion that Elizabeth
1 was, by the way she utilized Parliament and the non-nobility as a check on
the claims of the "nobles" to particpate in governing, the last of the
medieval monarchs. She was very good at managing the developing sense of
political power that was growing among the non-nobility. I can't say whether
she actually recognized what was happening or simply reacted to it and
managed to carry it off. Perhaps she was simply a more astute "people"
person"? I do know James 1 & VI and Charles 1, weren't nearly as good at
managing Parliament and suffered for that. Their failures led to, and made
possible, the constitutional changes accepted after the Civil War and
Interregnum.
From the little information available, it appears as if Richard's relations
with Parliament would have been much more like those of Elizabeth 1 than
James' or or his son. Had Richard won at Bosworth and been followed on the
throne by a legitimate heir (from the Portugese Princess?), I see no reason
to think that what was accomplished by Civil War couldn't have occurred
peacefully. However I'm also certain that, just as easily, something else
could have popped up and thrown a wrench into the proceedings!
Makes for a nice bit of "what if", though.
Doug