Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-19 18:42:36
Dear All -
I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
is suggestive.
Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion.
Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
However, to get to the point:
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
Thoughts?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
is suggestive.
Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion.
Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
However, to get to the point:
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
Thoughts?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Typo! Wrong year! RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-19 19:01:05
I've corrected the year below - I'm only 10 years out! Richard was
precocious, but he wasn't a child soldier. <smile> Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:43 PM
To:
Subject: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Dear All -
I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
is suggestive.
Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion.
Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
However, to get to the point:
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
Thoughts?
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
precocious, but he wasn't a child soldier. <smile> Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:43 PM
To:
Subject: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Dear All -
I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
is suggestive.
Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion.
Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
However, to get to the point:
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
Thoughts?
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-19 19:05:26
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Johanne ask was the reburial of Henry by Richard as attempt to assuage his guilty conscience....
Possibly...Probably the death of Henry was seen, at the time, as necessary to end once and for all the warfare and bloodshed that had beleaguered England for so long. While he lived Henry would always have been a focal point for rebellion. It may seem cruel to us sitting in our comfortable sitting rooms in the 21 century but to those in charge of ruling England, freshly from the battlefield where so many had lost their lives in dreadful ways it might have been seen as a necessity. Probably for all we know, those responsible for the old king's death may have felt reluctance, pity or abhorrence to such a deed. However to save more massive loss of lives may have deemed it a necessary evil.
So yes, Richard probably did carry it on his conscience.....He does not give the impression of being insensitive, rather the opposite...
Eileen
>
> At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Johanne ask was the reburial of Henry by Richard as attempt to assuage his guilty conscience....
Possibly...Probably the death of Henry was seen, at the time, as necessary to end once and for all the warfare and bloodshed that had beleaguered England for so long. While he lived Henry would always have been a focal point for rebellion. It may seem cruel to us sitting in our comfortable sitting rooms in the 21 century but to those in charge of ruling England, freshly from the battlefield where so many had lost their lives in dreadful ways it might have been seen as a necessity. Probably for all we know, those responsible for the old king's death may have felt reluctance, pity or abhorrence to such a deed. However to save more massive loss of lives may have deemed it a necessary evil.
So yes, Richard probably did carry it on his conscience.....He does not give the impression of being insensitive, rather the opposite...
Eileen
>
> At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Typo! Wrong year! RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-19 19:52:23
Well, folks do say...Henry's tomb at Chertsey was becoming a Destination for pilgrims, hoping for miracles. Moving his body to Windsor showed both greater honor...and lessened the numbers of devotees (and the locus for unrest).
Henry7 had been hemming and hawing over a proper tomb for Richard; he may have decided the time was right, once the rebellions had been successfully put down, and he was secure enough to finally be magnanimous (though he was rather skin-flinty, even then).
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:01 PM
Subject: Typo! Wrong year! RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
I've corrected the year below - I'm only 10 years out! Richard was
precocious, but he wasn't a child soldier. <smile> Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:43 PM
To:
Subject: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Dear All -
I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
is suggestive.
Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion.
Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
However, to get to the point:
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
Thoughts?
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Henry7 had been hemming and hawing over a proper tomb for Richard; he may have decided the time was right, once the rebellions had been successfully put down, and he was secure enough to finally be magnanimous (though he was rather skin-flinty, even then).
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:01 PM
Subject: Typo! Wrong year! RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
I've corrected the year below - I'm only 10 years out! Richard was
precocious, but he wasn't a child soldier. <smile> Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:43 PM
To:
Subject: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Dear All -
I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
is suggestive.
Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion.
Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
However, to get to the point:
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
Thoughts?
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-19 19:54:55
Yes for sure, Eileen, Richard does seem to have been essentially conscientious and thoughtful, in a time when the combatants were almost engaged in a blood feud. It is noteworthy that Edward and Richard were, for the most part, quite a merciful, only executing four of the ringleaders after Tewkesbury. Although they did pull them out of sanctuary at Tewkesbury abbey after Edward had promised to spare all the men who had sought sanctuary there after the battle. It seems to me that Kendall is making excuses for Edward and Richard on that point by saying that because the abbey didn't have especially privileged sanctuary but only "low sanctuary" and because he really hadn't meant to offer pardons to the ringleaders that it was acceptable procedure to offer some sort of a trial before Richard as Constable and Norfolk as Marshall and then immediately execute them.
By the standards of the day this may have been quite humane. But it does call to my mind the Biblical caution, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword" - except for Weasel and Fat Harry, it appears.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB
Sent: 19 Nov 2012 19:05:28 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Johanne ask was the reburial of Henry by Richard as attempt to assuage his guilty conscience....
Possibly...Probably the death of Henry was seen, at the time, as necessary to end once and for all the warfare and bloodshed that had beleaguered England for so long. While he lived Henry would always have been a focal point for rebellion. It may seem cruel to us sitting in our comfortable sitting rooms in the 21 century but to those in charge of ruling England, freshly from the battlefield where so many had lost their lives in dreadful ways it might have been seen as a necessity. Probably for all we know, those responsible for the old king's death may have felt reluctance, pity or abhorrence to such a deed. However to save more massive loss of lives may have deemed it a necessary evil.
So yes, Richard probably did carry it on his conscience.....He does not give the impression of being insensitive, rather the opposite...
Eileen
>
> At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
By the standards of the day this may have been quite humane. But it does call to my mind the Biblical caution, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword" - except for Weasel and Fat Harry, it appears.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB
Sent: 19 Nov 2012 19:05:28 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Johanne ask was the reburial of Henry by Richard as attempt to assuage his guilty conscience....
Possibly...Probably the death of Henry was seen, at the time, as necessary to end once and for all the warfare and bloodshed that had beleaguered England for so long. While he lived Henry would always have been a focal point for rebellion. It may seem cruel to us sitting in our comfortable sitting rooms in the 21 century but to those in charge of ruling England, freshly from the battlefield where so many had lost their lives in dreadful ways it might have been seen as a necessity. Probably for all we know, those responsible for the old king's death may have felt reluctance, pity or abhorrence to such a deed. However to save more massive loss of lives may have deemed it a necessary evil.
So yes, Richard probably did carry it on his conscience.....He does not give the impression of being insensitive, rather the opposite...
Eileen
>
> At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-19 22:30:41
Johanne Tournier wrote:
<snip>
> I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
>
> I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events is suggestive.
>
> Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George of Clarence <snip>
> From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely" that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death. <snip>
Carol responds:
Kendall has been accused of being too novelistic, and I think these two incidents illustrate the problem. In the case of Edward of Lancaster, Kendall is choosing among contemporary accounts (none of which involves Richard--that came later and is an interesting illustration of the Tudor legend in the process of development). Only one account involves George of Clarence, to whom Edward ostensibly "called for succor" but in vain. (Brother-in-law or not, George would want him dead at this point.) But other accounts have Lancaster killed in battle or killed fleeing from the field without naming anyone in particular.
In the other instance, it was obviously Edward IV who ordered the execution (assuming that Henry didn't die of "pure displeasure and melancholy"), but he must have had his council's approval, and it would most likely have been Richard's duty as Constable of England to see that the execution was carried out (unless Edward chose to spare his young brother this unpleasant duty, as he did later with the sentencing and execution of George of Clarence). Richard was reported as being at the Tower of London on the presumed day of execution "with many other" [sic]. Presumably, he would have given the order to Lord Dudley, the constable of the Tower, who, in turn, would have assigned the actual execution to an underling. Any claims that Richard personally murdered Henry VI, with or without orders, are absurd. Even Vergil (who insinuates that he did it to help his brother) states that Edward would have given "that butcherly office to some other than his own brother" (quoting from memory here).
It's likely that Richard, being only nineteen and very much wanting to retain his brother's approval (which he had earned at Barnet and Tewkesbury and even in exile in Burgundy) probably did not protest, much as he would have hated the job of ordering the death of an anointed king and a feeble-minded one at that. But it seems that he did regret his part--and Edward's--in the deed, and did what he could to make up for it by reburying Henry near Edward IV.
Of course, it's possible that Richard had nothing to do with it at all and was there on other business or even that the writer who claimed that he was there wanted to imply that he was involved without actually saying so. I don't have the actual source at hand so I don't know its date or reputation for accuracy.
At any rate, the Croyland Chronicler says that whoever did this deed (no names mentioned) deserves the name of tyrant, which suggests Edward (though Richard's enemies have interpreted it to mean him).
Carol
<snip>
> I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
>
> I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events is suggestive.
>
> Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George of Clarence <snip>
> From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely" that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death. <snip>
Carol responds:
Kendall has been accused of being too novelistic, and I think these two incidents illustrate the problem. In the case of Edward of Lancaster, Kendall is choosing among contemporary accounts (none of which involves Richard--that came later and is an interesting illustration of the Tudor legend in the process of development). Only one account involves George of Clarence, to whom Edward ostensibly "called for succor" but in vain. (Brother-in-law or not, George would want him dead at this point.) But other accounts have Lancaster killed in battle or killed fleeing from the field without naming anyone in particular.
In the other instance, it was obviously Edward IV who ordered the execution (assuming that Henry didn't die of "pure displeasure and melancholy"), but he must have had his council's approval, and it would most likely have been Richard's duty as Constable of England to see that the execution was carried out (unless Edward chose to spare his young brother this unpleasant duty, as he did later with the sentencing and execution of George of Clarence). Richard was reported as being at the Tower of London on the presumed day of execution "with many other" [sic]. Presumably, he would have given the order to Lord Dudley, the constable of the Tower, who, in turn, would have assigned the actual execution to an underling. Any claims that Richard personally murdered Henry VI, with or without orders, are absurd. Even Vergil (who insinuates that he did it to help his brother) states that Edward would have given "that butcherly office to some other than his own brother" (quoting from memory here).
It's likely that Richard, being only nineteen and very much wanting to retain his brother's approval (which he had earned at Barnet and Tewkesbury and even in exile in Burgundy) probably did not protest, much as he would have hated the job of ordering the death of an anointed king and a feeble-minded one at that. But it seems that he did regret his part--and Edward's--in the deed, and did what he could to make up for it by reburying Henry near Edward IV.
Of course, it's possible that Richard had nothing to do with it at all and was there on other business or even that the writer who claimed that he was there wanted to imply that he was involved without actually saying so. I don't have the actual source at hand so I don't know its date or reputation for accuracy.
At any rate, the Croyland Chronicler says that whoever did this deed (no names mentioned) deserves the name of tyrant, which suggests Edward (though Richard's enemies have interpreted it to mean him).
Carol
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 15:00:39
Hi Johanne,
Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to deliver the order really is nonsense.
The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of the Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually states:-
"The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes, and in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men, all arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to the citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste, the xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; …
The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye, and went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they, heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
"The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London; not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
So:
Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is this just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events, relates what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the timing of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back later.
Marie
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear All -
>
>
> I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
> of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
>
>
>
> I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
> is suggestive.
>
>
>
> Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
> of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
> So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
> of rebellion.
>
>
>
> Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
> the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
>
>
>
> However, to get to the point:
>
>
>
> "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
> of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
> the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
>
>
>
> From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
> his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
> that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
> text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
>
>
>
> At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to deliver the order really is nonsense.
The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of the Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually states:-
"The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes, and in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men, all arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to the citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste, the xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; …
The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye, and went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they, heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
"The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London; not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
So:
Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is this just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events, relates what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the timing of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back later.
Marie
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear All -
>
>
> I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
> of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
>
>
>
> I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
> is suggestive.
>
>
>
> Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
> of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
> So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
> of rebellion.
>
>
>
> Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
> the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
>
>
>
> However, to get to the point:
>
>
>
> "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
> of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
> the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
>
>
>
> From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
> his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
> that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
> text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
>
>
>
> At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 16:11:29
Hi, Marie -
Much appreciate this recital - it's worth hanging onto to supplement
Kendall's account. I don't think he even mentions the Kentish rebellion - at
least I don't recall anything about it. I take it that it doesn't
specifically note who went with Edward? However, unless Richard was wounded
and required time to recuperate, I can't believe that, given the honour with
which he acquitted himself at Barnet and Tewkesbury, that Edward would have
taken off himself with a force of arms that didn't include Richard.
I will try to transcribe more of Kendall's notes about Prince Edward of
Wales' death and the death of King Henry VI, for those who are not familiar
with them.
I guess the question arises as to whether, if he did decide on the permanent
elimination of Henry, Edward would have allowed his (and/or Richard's)
fingerprints to be left all over the documentary record.
What can you tell me about Warkworth? Should his accounts be given the
unusual weight that Kendall seems to give it in both instances?
The only other thing that occurs to me regarding Kendall is that he
certainly hasn't allowed his generally sympathetic view of Richard to skew
his account in Richard's favour.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi Johanne,
Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming
of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement
that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that
as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the
warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also
imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you
intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to
deliver the order really is nonsense.
The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of the
Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by
natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely
out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually
states:-
"The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes, and
in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men, all
arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to the
citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste, the
xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; .
The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye, and
went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to
represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to
assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they,
heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
"The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the
knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London;
not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great
dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he
dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
So:
Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is this
just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events, relates
what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the timing
of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating
the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back
later.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear All -
>
>
> I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the
responsibility
> of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of
blood.
>
>
>
> I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
> is suggestive.
>
>
>
> Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over
George
> of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken
woman.
> So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible
focus
> of rebellion.
>
>
>
> Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication
of
> the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
>
>
>
> However, to get to the point:
>
>
>
> "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the
conclusion
> of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported
up
> the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
>
>
>
> From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although
in
> his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is
"unlikely"
> that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of
the
> text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
>
>
>
> At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible
parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both
be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Much appreciate this recital - it's worth hanging onto to supplement
Kendall's account. I don't think he even mentions the Kentish rebellion - at
least I don't recall anything about it. I take it that it doesn't
specifically note who went with Edward? However, unless Richard was wounded
and required time to recuperate, I can't believe that, given the honour with
which he acquitted himself at Barnet and Tewkesbury, that Edward would have
taken off himself with a force of arms that didn't include Richard.
I will try to transcribe more of Kendall's notes about Prince Edward of
Wales' death and the death of King Henry VI, for those who are not familiar
with them.
I guess the question arises as to whether, if he did decide on the permanent
elimination of Henry, Edward would have allowed his (and/or Richard's)
fingerprints to be left all over the documentary record.
What can you tell me about Warkworth? Should his accounts be given the
unusual weight that Kendall seems to give it in both instances?
The only other thing that occurs to me regarding Kendall is that he
certainly hasn't allowed his generally sympathetic view of Richard to skew
his account in Richard's favour.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi Johanne,
Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming
of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement
that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that
as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the
warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also
imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you
intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to
deliver the order really is nonsense.
The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of the
Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by
natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely
out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually
states:-
"The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes, and
in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men, all
arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to the
citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste, the
xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; .
The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye, and
went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to
represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to
assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they,
heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
"The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the
knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London;
not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great
dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he
dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
So:
Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is this
just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events, relates
what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the timing
of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating
the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back
later.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear All -
>
>
> I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the
responsibility
> of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of
blood.
>
>
>
> I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
> is suggestive.
>
>
>
> Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over
George
> of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken
woman.
> So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible
focus
> of rebellion.
>
>
>
> Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication
of
> the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
>
>
>
> However, to get to the point:
>
>
>
> "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the
conclusion
> of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported
up
> the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
>
>
>
> From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although
in
> his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is
"unlikely"
> that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of
the
> text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
>
>
>
> At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible
parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both
be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 16:44:03
Good informative post Marie...Whatever the timing of the execution/murder of Henry the buck would have stopped at Edward...assuming of course Henry did not die naturally. I cannot see anyone taking delight or relishing the death of such a gentle man but a horrible necessity to prevent further largescale bloodshed. Poor old Henry..What was he but another pawn..It reminds me of something I read once about the execution of Charles lst. Someone had said that Cromwell secretly went to view Charles' corpse and was overheard to whisper "cruel necessity'...I don't know whether this is true or not but it's possible that Cromwell may have thought along these lines...Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to deliver the order really is nonsense.
> The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
> a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
> b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of the Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
> If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually states:-
> "The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes, and in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men, all arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to the citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste, the xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; …
> The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye, and went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they, heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
> "The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London; not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
> So:
> Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
> Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
> Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
>
> Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is this just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events, relates what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the timing of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
> Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All -
> >
> >
> > I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> > think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
> > of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> > Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> > Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
> >
> >
> >
> > I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
> > is suggestive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> > after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> > been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
> > of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> > Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
> > So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> > the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
> > of rebellion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> > 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> > honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> > Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
> > the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> > the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, to get to the point:
> >
> >
> >
> > "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
> > of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> > delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> > Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> > out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> > strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> > surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> > it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
> > the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
> >
> >
> >
> > From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> > than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
> > his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
> > that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> > sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
> > text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> > interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> > tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> > with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> > Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> > seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to deliver the order really is nonsense.
> The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
> a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
> b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of the Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
> If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually states:-
> "The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes, and in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men, all arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to the citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste, the xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; …
> The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye, and went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they, heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
> "The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London; not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
> So:
> Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
> Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
> Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
>
> Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is this just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events, relates what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the timing of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
> Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All -
> >
> >
> > I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> > think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the responsibility
> > of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> > Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> > Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of blood.
> >
> >
> >
> > I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
> > is suggestive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> > after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> > been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
> > of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> > Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
> > So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> > the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
> > of rebellion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> > 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> > honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> > Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
> > the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> > the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, to get to the point:
> >
> >
> >
> > "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
> > of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> > delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> > Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> > out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> > strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> > surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> > it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
> > the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
> >
> >
> >
> > From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> > than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
> > his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
> > that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> > sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
> > text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> > interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> > tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> > with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> > Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> > seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 17:09:20
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:44 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Good informative post Marie...Whatever the timing of the execution/murder of
Henry the buck would have stopped at Edward...assuming of course Henry did
not die naturally. I cannot see anyone taking delight or relishing the death
of such a gentle man but a horrible necessity to prevent further largescale
bloodshed. Poor old Henry..What was he but another pawn..It reminds me of
something I read once about the execution of Charles lst. Someone had said
that Cromwell secretly went to view Charles' corpse and was overheard to
whisper "cruel necessity'...I don't know whether this is true or not but
it's possible that Cromwell may have thought along these lines...Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming
of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement
that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that
as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the
warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also
imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you
intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to
deliver the order really is nonsense.
> The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
> a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
> b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of
the Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
> If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by
natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely
out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually
states:-
> "The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes,
and in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men,
all arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to
the citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste,
the xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; .
> The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye,
and went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to
represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to
assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they,
heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
> "The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the
knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London;
not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great
dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he
dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
> So:
> Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
> Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
> Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
>
> Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is
this just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events,
relates what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the
timing of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
> Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating
the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back
later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All -
> >
> >
> > I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> > think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the
responsibility
> > of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> > Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> > Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of
blood.
> >
> >
> >
> > I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of
events
> > is suggestive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> > after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales
had
> > been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over
George
> > of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty
to
> > Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken
woman.
> > So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back
of
> > the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible
focus
> > of rebellion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May
21,
> > 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> > honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> > Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an
indication of
> > the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared
with
> > the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, to get to the point:
> >
> >
> >
> > "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the
conclusion
> > of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> > delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> > Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be
snuffed
> > out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> > strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> > surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's
where
> > it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported
up
> > the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p.
104)
> >
> >
> >
> > From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> > than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although
in
> > his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is
"unlikely"
> > that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> > sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of
the
> > text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> > interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded
Henry's
> > tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible
parallel
> > with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> > Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both
be
> > seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:44 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Good informative post Marie...Whatever the timing of the execution/murder of
Henry the buck would have stopped at Edward...assuming of course Henry did
not die naturally. I cannot see anyone taking delight or relishing the death
of such a gentle man but a horrible necessity to prevent further largescale
bloodshed. Poor old Henry..What was he but another pawn..It reminds me of
something I read once about the execution of Charles lst. Someone had said
that Cromwell secretly went to view Charles' corpse and was overheard to
whisper "cruel necessity'...I don't know whether this is true or not but
it's possible that Cromwell may have thought along these lines...Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming
of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement
that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that
as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the
warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also
imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you
intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to
deliver the order really is nonsense.
> The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
> a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
> b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of
the Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
> If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by
natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely
out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually
states:-
> "The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes,
and in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men,
all arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to
the citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste,
the xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; .
> The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye,
and went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to
represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to
assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they,
heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
> "The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the
knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London;
not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great
dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he
dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
> So:
> Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
> Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
> Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
>
> Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is
this just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events,
relates what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the
timing of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
> Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating
the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back
later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All -
> >
> >
> > I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> > think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the
responsibility
> > of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> > Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> > Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of
blood.
> >
> >
> >
> > I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of
events
> > is suggestive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> > after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales
had
> > been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over
George
> > of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty
to
> > Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken
woman.
> > So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back
of
> > the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible
focus
> > of rebellion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May
21,
> > 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> > honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> > Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an
indication of
> > the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared
with
> > the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, to get to the point:
> >
> >
> >
> > "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the
conclusion
> > of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> > delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> > Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be
snuffed
> > out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> > strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> > surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's
where
> > it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported
up
> > the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p.
104)
> >
> >
> >
> > From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> > than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although
in
> > his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is
"unlikely"
> > that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> > sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of
the
> > text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> > interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded
Henry's
> > tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible
parallel
> > with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> > Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both
be
> > seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 17:20:15
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 17:24:59
Johanne, are you talking about MB or Margaret of Anjou...I suspect MofA...She was returned to France where she lived out her days..a broken woman from the look of things.Eileen
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen & Marie -
>
>
>
> It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
> Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
> poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
> chivalric ideal in action.
>
>
>
> What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:44 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
>
>
>
>
> Good informative post Marie...Whatever the timing of the execution/murder of
> Henry the buck would have stopped at Edward...assuming of course Henry did
> not die naturally. I cannot see anyone taking delight or relishing the death
> of such a gentle man but a horrible necessity to prevent further largescale
> bloodshed. Poor old Henry..What was he but another pawn..It reminds me of
> something I read once about the execution of Charles lst. Someone had said
> that Cromwell secretly went to view Charles' corpse and was overheard to
> whisper "cruel necessity'...I don't know whether this is true or not but
> it's possible that Cromwell may have thought along these lines...Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Johanne,
> >
> > Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming
> of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement
> that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that
> as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the
> warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also
> imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you
> intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to
> deliver the order really is nonsense.
> > The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
> > a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
> > b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of
> the Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
> > If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by
> natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely
> out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually
> states:-
> > "The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes,
> and in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men,
> all arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to
> the citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste,
> the xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; .
> > The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye,
> and went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to
> represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to
> assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they,
> heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
> > "The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the
> knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London;
> not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great
> dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he
> dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
> > So:
> > Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
> > Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
> > Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
> >
> > Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is
> this just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events,
> relates what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the
> timing of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
> > Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating
> the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back
> later.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear All -
> > >
> > >
> > > I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> > > think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the
> responsibility
> > > of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> > > Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> > > Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of
> blood.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of
> events
> > > is suggestive.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> > > after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales
> had
> > > been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over
> George
> > > of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty
> to
> > > Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken
> woman.
> > > So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back
> of
> > > the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible
> focus
> > > of rebellion.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May
> 21,
> > > 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> > > honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> > > Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an
> indication of
> > > the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared
> with
> > > the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > However, to get to the point:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the
> conclusion
> > > of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> > > delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> > > Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be
> snuffed
> > > out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> > > strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> > > surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's
> where
> > > it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported
> up
> > > the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p.
> 104)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> > > than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although
> in
> > > his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is
> "unlikely"
> > > that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> > > sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of
> the
> > > text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> > > interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded
> Henry's
> > > tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible
> parallel
> > > with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> > > Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both
> be
> > > seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen & Marie -
>
>
>
> It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
> Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
> poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
> chivalric ideal in action.
>
>
>
> What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:44 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
>
>
>
>
> Good informative post Marie...Whatever the timing of the execution/murder of
> Henry the buck would have stopped at Edward...assuming of course Henry did
> not die naturally. I cannot see anyone taking delight or relishing the death
> of such a gentle man but a horrible necessity to prevent further largescale
> bloodshed. Poor old Henry..What was he but another pawn..It reminds me of
> something I read once about the execution of Charles lst. Someone had said
> that Cromwell secretly went to view Charles' corpse and was overheard to
> whisper "cruel necessity'...I don't know whether this is true or not but
> it's possible that Cromwell may have thought along these lines...Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Johanne,
> >
> > Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming
> of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement
> that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that
> as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the
> warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also
> imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you
> intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to
> deliver the order really is nonsense.
> > The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
> > a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
> > b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of
> the Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
> > If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by
> natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely
> out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually
> states:-
> > "The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes,
> and in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men,
> all arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to
> the citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste,
> the xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; .
> > The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye,
> and went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to
> represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to
> assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they,
> heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
> > "The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the
> knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London;
> not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great
> dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he
> dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
> > So:
> > Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
> > Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
> > Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
> >
> > Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is
> this just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events,
> relates what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the
> timing of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
> > Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating
> the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back
> later.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear All -
> > >
> > >
> > > I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> > > think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the
> responsibility
> > > of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> > > Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> > > Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of
> blood.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of
> events
> > > is suggestive.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> > > after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales
> had
> > > been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over
> George
> > > of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty
> to
> > > Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken
> woman.
> > > So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back
> of
> > > the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible
> focus
> > > of rebellion.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May
> 21,
> > > 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> > > honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> > > Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an
> indication of
> > > the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared
> with
> > > the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > However, to get to the point:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the
> conclusion
> > > of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> > > delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> > > Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be
> snuffed
> > > out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> > > strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> > > surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's
> where
> > > it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported
> up
> > > the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p.
> 104)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> > > than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although
> in
> > > his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is
> "unlikely"
> > > that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> > > sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of
> the
> > > text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> > > interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded
> Henry's
> > > tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible
> parallel
> > > with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> > > Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both
> be
> > > seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 17:24:59
Personally I wouldn't trust Warkworth too far on this one. It is a great source for some things, but as the author gives us a detailed and possibly highly accurate account of such things as the de Vere experience at the Battle of Barnet, Archbishop Neville's arrest, and Oxford's escapade in St Michael's Mount, you have to ask yourself whether someone who had that kind of fly-in-the-fog perspective of the Lancastrian experience at Barnet would also have been with King Edward when he entered London in late May.
I don't know whether Warkworth himself was the author (it was found amongst his papers), but I doubt that too because he was an academic and not only is this chronicle written in English but it is full of silly prophecies and sexual innuendoes that someone like Warkworth would surely have looked down on (mirage cock crowing over the sea; the 'Woe Water' near Markyate only flowing when disaster is about to strike - the river wasn't called the Woe, but the Ver; the Upper Ver is a seasonal chalk stream and except in very wet weather the water seeps away into the chalk. There is another such seasonal chalk stream in Sth Herts where I grew up and it is just SOOOooo obvious that it flows only after heavy rain - this was obviously a tall tale told by the monks to a gullible passing traveller.) Also, if there are any scholarly allusions to classical works, or biblical quotations, in the chronicle, I have't noticed them.
Warkworth's account stops abruptly with Oxford's surrender and arrest at St Michael's Mount. It was probably all written up some time after that (the earlier sections are much more unreliable than the later ones). The author, if my hunch is correct, wouldn't have been present at either Tewkesbury or London at the time of Henry VI's death. Writing in King Edward's reign, he couldn't accuse Edward of murdering Henry and his son, but would probably like to have done, so he writes in a way that suggests the involvement of his two brothers - Clarence in Prince Edward's death and Gloucester in that of Henry VI. This is his version of Henry's VI's death (please forgive me for morderninsing spelling- it's just quicker):-
"And the same night that King Edward came to London, King Harry, being in ward in prison in the Tower of London, was put to death the xxi [21st] day of May, on a Tuesday night betwixt xi & xij [11 and 12] of the clock, being then at the Tower the Duke of Gloucester, brother to King Edward, and many other. And on the morrow her was chested and brought to Paul's, and his face was open, that every man might see him, and in his lying he bled on the pavement there, and afterward at the Black Friars was brought and there he bled new and fresh, and from thence he was carried to Chertsey Abbey in a boat...."
So Warkworth has moved the death forward (relative to the Arrivall), having it take place one the one night that King Edward and his followers were in London.
Just to note, as well, that a dead body couldn't go on bleeding like that, and no other source has this lurid detail. Note that the Arrivall doesn't mention Henry being laid out at St Paul's, only the Blackfriars. Perhaps here Warkworth was getting confused with the Earl of Warwick. Why would Henry be laid out in two consecutive sites on the same side of the same city on the same day?
The internal evidence of the chronicle suggests to me that it was written by someone who fought under Warwick in Northumberland in the early 1460s, but was later in the household of the Earl of Oxford. If I am right, then the fact that it was also written after Richard had forced Oxford's mother to make over her lands to him would be highly significant. Indeed, Warkworth himself was one of the Countess' feoffees.
Anyhow, I need to get on and look up other sources.
Marie
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie -
> Much appreciate this recital - it's worth hanging onto to supplement
> Kendall's account. I don't think he even mentions the Kentish rebellion - at
> least I don't recall anything about it. I take it that it doesn't
> specifically note who went with Edward? However, unless Richard was wounded
> and required time to recuperate, I can't believe that, given the honour with
> which he acquitted himself at Barnet and Tewkesbury, that Edward would have
> taken off himself with a force of arms that didn't include Richard.
>
>
>
> I will try to transcribe more of Kendall's notes about Prince Edward of
> Wales' death and the death of King Henry VI, for those who are not familiar
> with them.
>
>
>
> I guess the question arises as to whether, if he did decide on the permanent
> elimination of Henry, Edward would have allowed his (and/or Richard's)
> fingerprints to be left all over the documentary record.
>
>
>
> What can you tell me about Warkworth? Should his accounts be given the
> unusual weight that Kendall seems to give it in both instances?
>
>
>
> The only other thing that occurs to me regarding Kendall is that he
> certainly hasn't allowed his generally sympathetic view of Richard to skew
> his account in Richard's favour.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming
> of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement
> that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that
> as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the
> warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also
> imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you
> intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to
> deliver the order really is nonsense.
> The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
> a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
> b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of the
> Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
> If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by
> natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely
> out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually
> states:-
> "The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes, and
> in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men, all
> arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to the
> citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste, the
> xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; .
> The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye, and
> went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to
> represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to
> assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they,
> heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
> "The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the
> knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London;
> not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great
> dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he
> dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
> So:
> Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
> Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
> Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
>
> Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is this
> just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events, relates
> what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the timing
> of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
> Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating
> the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back
> later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All -
> >
> >
> > I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> > think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the
> responsibility
> > of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> > Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> > Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of
> blood.
> >
> >
> >
> > I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
> > is suggestive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> > after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> > been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over
> George
> > of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> > Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken
> woman.
> > So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> > the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible
> focus
> > of rebellion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> > 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> > honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> > Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication
> of
> > the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> > the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, to get to the point:
> >
> >
> >
> > "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the
> conclusion
> > of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> > delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> > Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> > out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> > strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> > surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> > it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported
> up
> > the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
> >
> >
> >
> > From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> > than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although
> in
> > his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is
> "unlikely"
> > that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> > sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of
> the
> > text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> > interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> > tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible
> parallel
> > with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> > Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both
> be
> > seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I don't know whether Warkworth himself was the author (it was found amongst his papers), but I doubt that too because he was an academic and not only is this chronicle written in English but it is full of silly prophecies and sexual innuendoes that someone like Warkworth would surely have looked down on (mirage cock crowing over the sea; the 'Woe Water' near Markyate only flowing when disaster is about to strike - the river wasn't called the Woe, but the Ver; the Upper Ver is a seasonal chalk stream and except in very wet weather the water seeps away into the chalk. There is another such seasonal chalk stream in Sth Herts where I grew up and it is just SOOOooo obvious that it flows only after heavy rain - this was obviously a tall tale told by the monks to a gullible passing traveller.) Also, if there are any scholarly allusions to classical works, or biblical quotations, in the chronicle, I have't noticed them.
Warkworth's account stops abruptly with Oxford's surrender and arrest at St Michael's Mount. It was probably all written up some time after that (the earlier sections are much more unreliable than the later ones). The author, if my hunch is correct, wouldn't have been present at either Tewkesbury or London at the time of Henry VI's death. Writing in King Edward's reign, he couldn't accuse Edward of murdering Henry and his son, but would probably like to have done, so he writes in a way that suggests the involvement of his two brothers - Clarence in Prince Edward's death and Gloucester in that of Henry VI. This is his version of Henry's VI's death (please forgive me for morderninsing spelling- it's just quicker):-
"And the same night that King Edward came to London, King Harry, being in ward in prison in the Tower of London, was put to death the xxi [21st] day of May, on a Tuesday night betwixt xi & xij [11 and 12] of the clock, being then at the Tower the Duke of Gloucester, brother to King Edward, and many other. And on the morrow her was chested and brought to Paul's, and his face was open, that every man might see him, and in his lying he bled on the pavement there, and afterward at the Black Friars was brought and there he bled new and fresh, and from thence he was carried to Chertsey Abbey in a boat...."
So Warkworth has moved the death forward (relative to the Arrivall), having it take place one the one night that King Edward and his followers were in London.
Just to note, as well, that a dead body couldn't go on bleeding like that, and no other source has this lurid detail. Note that the Arrivall doesn't mention Henry being laid out at St Paul's, only the Blackfriars. Perhaps here Warkworth was getting confused with the Earl of Warwick. Why would Henry be laid out in two consecutive sites on the same side of the same city on the same day?
The internal evidence of the chronicle suggests to me that it was written by someone who fought under Warwick in Northumberland in the early 1460s, but was later in the household of the Earl of Oxford. If I am right, then the fact that it was also written after Richard had forced Oxford's mother to make over her lands to him would be highly significant. Indeed, Warkworth himself was one of the Countess' feoffees.
Anyhow, I need to get on and look up other sources.
Marie
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie -
> Much appreciate this recital - it's worth hanging onto to supplement
> Kendall's account. I don't think he even mentions the Kentish rebellion - at
> least I don't recall anything about it. I take it that it doesn't
> specifically note who went with Edward? However, unless Richard was wounded
> and required time to recuperate, I can't believe that, given the honour with
> which he acquitted himself at Barnet and Tewkesbury, that Edward would have
> taken off himself with a force of arms that didn't include Richard.
>
>
>
> I will try to transcribe more of Kendall's notes about Prince Edward of
> Wales' death and the death of King Henry VI, for those who are not familiar
> with them.
>
>
>
> I guess the question arises as to whether, if he did decide on the permanent
> elimination of Henry, Edward would have allowed his (and/or Richard's)
> fingerprints to be left all over the documentary record.
>
>
>
> What can you tell me about Warkworth? Should his accounts be given the
> unusual weight that Kendall seems to give it in both instances?
>
>
>
> The only other thing that occurs to me regarding Kendall is that he
> certainly hasn't allowed his generally sympathetic view of Richard to skew
> his account in Richard's favour.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Johanne,
>
> Kendall was trtying to square Edward IV's obvious responsibility (assuming
> of course that Henry did not die of melancholy) with Warkworth's statement
> that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question, by suggesting that
> as Lord Constable Richard would have been given the task of bearing the
> warrant for Henry's death to the Tower. This council of advisors is also
> imagined. We really have no idea what went on, but the notion that if you
> intend to murder (as opposed to execute) someone the Lord Constable has to
> deliver the order really is nonsense.
> The answer as to whether Richard COULD even have been there depends:-
> a) on the date that Henry VI died, and
> b) on the date that Edward and Richard left London to mop up the last of the
> Kentish rebellion, and whether they went together.
> If I were Edward, and was intneding to pass off Henry's murder as death by
> natural causes, I would have arranged for him to be killed once I was safely
> out of London, and that is what the earliest source, The Arrivall, actually
> states:-
> "The Kynge this season, well accompanied and mightely with great lordes, and
> in substaunce all the noblemen of the land, with many othar able men, all
> arraied for the werre, to the nombar of xxxm [30,000] horsemen, cam to the
> citie of London, sone aftar the disperblynge of the Kenthyshe hooste, the
> xxj. day of Maye, the Twesdaye; .
> The Kynge, incontinent aftar his comynge to London, taried but one daye, and
> went with his hole army, aftar his sayd traytors into Kent, them to
> represse, in caas they were in any place assembled, and for to let them to
> assemble by any comocion to be made amongs them, wher unto they,
> heretoforne, have often tymes bene accustomyd to doo."
> "The certaintie of all whiche [the deaths at Tewkesbury] came to the
> knowledge of the sayd Henry, late called Kyng, being in the Tower of London;
> not havynge, afore that, knowledge of the saide matars, he toke it so great
> dispite, ire, indingnation, that, of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he
> dyed the xxiij. day of the monithe of May."
> So:
> Tue 21st May - Edward & his army enters London
> Wed 22nd May - Edward & his army move on into Kent
> Thur 23rd May (Feast of the Assumption) - Henry VI dies.
>
> Later sources have Henry killed before Edward left the capital, but is this
> just hindsight? The Arrivall, being the official version of events, relates
> what Edward wanted people to think, but also - in the matter of the timing
> of the death - what he would have wanted to have happen.
> Then there are, I believe, a couple of "proper" primary sources indicating
> the dates for these things, but I shall need to look into this and post back
> later.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All -
> >
> >
> > I know there was a discussion of this issue not too long ago here, and I
> > think the consensus was that killing Henry was primarily the
> responsibility
> > of Edward IV, not Richard. That said, it does appear by this time that
> > Richard was one of Edward's closest confederates, and of course, unlike
> > Hastings, they were brothers so tied to one another by close ties of
> blood.
> >
> >
> >
> > I was reading Kendall's biography last night, and his recitation of events
> > is suggestive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> > after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> > been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over
> George
> > of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> > Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken
> woman.
> > So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> > the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible
> focus
> > of rebellion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> > 1461. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> > honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> > Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication
> of
> > the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> > the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, to get to the point:
> >
> >
> >
> > "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the
> conclusion
> > of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> > delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> > Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> > out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> > strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> > surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> > it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported
> up
> > the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
> >
> >
> >
> > From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> > than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although
> in
> > his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is
> "unlikely"
> > that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> > sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of
> the
> > text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> > interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> > tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible
> parallel
> > with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> > Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both
> be
> > seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 17:38:30
Is Susan H a member of this forum?
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 18:10:35
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her? Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her? Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 18:32:03
Margaret of Anjou posed no threat once her son was dead. She had a
connection to Louis XI that would have made anyone hesitate to execute her.
What I said was that it 'needn't' have had anything to do with chivalry, not
that it 'didn't. The possible political ramifications of executing her (ie,
trouble with France) shouldn't be ignored.
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:10:34 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her? Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
connection to Louis XI that would have made anyone hesitate to execute her.
What I said was that it 'needn't' have had anything to do with chivalry, not
that it 'didn't. The possible political ramifications of executing her (ie,
trouble with France) shouldn't be ignored.
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:10:34 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her? Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 18:52:58
Noblewomen were not executed in England for treason until 1536.
----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her? Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her? Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 19:00:51
Hi, Stephen -
Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Noblewomen were not executed in England for treason until 1536.
,_.___
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNGwx
a3RmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
Mzk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--?act=reply&messageNum=19
398> Reply via web post
<mailto:stephenmlark@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society
%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F> Reply to
sender
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F>
Reply to group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOG9u
ZGdyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--> Start a New Topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2djRoYWhoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzE5Mzk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
-> Messages in this topic (17)
Recent Activity:
.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
HFsYWxuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0Mzc1Nzk-?o=6> New Members 2
.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaWs
xM2Q0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0Mzc1Nzk-> New Photos 7
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc3VuNDFmB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--> Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaWxpb3AxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDM3NTc5>
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
=19398/stime=1353437579/nc1=5008816/nc2=3848614/nc3=4025304>
Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Noblewomen were not executed in England for treason until 1536.
,_.___
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNGwx
a3RmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
Mzk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--?act=reply&messageNum=19
398> Reply via web post
<mailto:stephenmlark@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society
%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F> Reply to
sender
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F>
Reply to group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOG9u
ZGdyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--> Start a New Topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2djRoYWhoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzE5Mzk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
-> Messages in this topic (17)
Recent Activity:
.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
HFsYWxuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0Mzc1Nzk-?o=6> New Members 2
.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaWs
xM2Q0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0Mzc1Nzk-> New Photos 7
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc3VuNDFmB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--> Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaWxpb3AxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDM3NTc5>
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
=19398/stime=1353437579/nc1=5008816/nc2=3848614/nc3=4025304>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 19:03:42
Though there's no way of telling, I wonder what might have happened to the
countess of Salisbury in 1459/60 had she not scarpered (quite
understandably) to Ireland. Imprisonment, certainly. The case of Eleanor
Cobham does suggest that 'execution' wasn't the first thought with a
noblewoman found guilty of treason. Assuming that Henry VI didn't in fact
die of melancholy, the need to despatch him in secrecy suggests an
unwillingness to put a king (even an ex-king) to death. I should think that
applied to ex-queens as well.
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:52:37 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Noblewomen were not executed in England for treason until 1536.
----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her?
Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
countess of Salisbury in 1459/60 had she not scarpered (quite
understandably) to Ireland. Imprisonment, certainly. The case of Eleanor
Cobham does suggest that 'execution' wasn't the first thought with a
noblewoman found guilty of treason. Assuming that Henry VI didn't in fact
die of melancholy, the need to despatch him in secrecy suggests an
unwillingness to put a king (even an ex-king) to death. I should think that
applied to ex-queens as well.
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:52:37 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Noblewomen were not executed in England for treason until 1536.
----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her?
Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 19:14:37
That should have been 'openly and publicly put a kingŠ to death'. Just to
clarify.
Karen
From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:03:31 +1100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Though there's no way of telling, I wonder what might have happened to the
countess of Salisbury in 1459/60 had she not scarpered (quite
understandably) to Ireland. Imprisonment, certainly. The case of Eleanor
Cobham does suggest that 'execution' wasn't the first thought with a
noblewoman found guilty of treason. Assuming that Henry VI didn't in fact
die of melancholy, the need to despatch him in secrecy suggests an
unwillingness to put a king (even an ex-king) to death. I should think that
applied to ex-queens as well.
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:52:37 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Noblewomen were not executed in England for treason until 1536.
----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her?
Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
clarify.
Karen
From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:03:31 +1100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Though there's no way of telling, I wonder what might have happened to the
countess of Salisbury in 1459/60 had she not scarpered (quite
understandably) to Ireland. Imprisonment, certainly. The case of Eleanor
Cobham does suggest that 'execution' wasn't the first thought with a
noblewoman found guilty of treason. Assuming that Henry VI didn't in fact
die of melancholy, the need to despatch him in secrecy suggests an
unwillingness to put a king (even an ex-king) to death. I should think that
applied to ex-queens as well.
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:52:37 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Noblewomen were not executed in England for treason until 1536.
----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her?
Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 19:28:08
Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the Tudors....Eileen
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Stephen -
>
> Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:53 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
>
>
>
>
> Noblewomen were not executed in England for treason until 1536.
>
> ,_.___
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNGwx
> a3RmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> Mzk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> 398> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:stephenmlark@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society
> %20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F> Reply to
> sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F>
> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOG9u
> ZGdyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2djRoYWhoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzE5Mzk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
> -> Messages in this topic (17)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
> HFsYWxuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0Mzc1Nzk-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaWs
> xM2Q0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0Mzc1Nzk-> New Photos 7
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc3VuNDFmB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaWxpb3AxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDM3NTc5>
> 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
> =19398/stime=1353437579/nc1=5008816/nc2=3848614/nc3=4025304>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Stephen -
>
> Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:53 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
>
>
>
>
> Noblewomen were not executed in England for treason until 1536.
>
> ,_.___
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNGwx
> a3RmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> Mzk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> 398> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:stephenmlark@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society
> %20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F> Reply to
> sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F>
> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOG9u
> ZGdyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2djRoYWhoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzE5Mzk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
> -> Messages in this topic (17)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
> HFsYWxuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0Mzc1Nzk-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaWs
> xM2Q0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0Mzc1Nzk-> New Photos 7
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc3VuNDFmB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQzNzU3OQ--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaWxpb3AxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDM3NTc5>
> 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
> =19398/stime=1353437579/nc1=5008816/nc2=3848614/nc3=4025304>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 19:40:26
I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood mute...."
Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
~Wednesday
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the Tudors....Eileen
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood mute...."
Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
~Wednesday
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the Tudors....Eileen
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 19:58:20
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Margaret of Anjou posed no threat once her son was dead. She had a connection to Louis XI that would have made anyone hesitate to execute her.
> What I said was that it 'needn't' have had anything to do with chivalry, not that it 'didn't. The possible political ramifications of executing her (ie, trouble with France) shouldn't be ignored.
Carol responds:
I doubt that her execution would have caused trouble with France. Louis XI seems to have had no interest in Margaret of Anjou's troubles once he no longer had a use for her. He did eventually ransom her from Edward, who had imprisoned her in the Tower, but Louis did little if anything to help her after that. She seems so have died in poverty. Louis made sure that he got her dogs, about all that she had left to take.
I agree that she posed no threat with her son dead, but she had certainly caused great grief to the Yorkists, who may have held her responsible for the deaths of the Duke of York and Edmund of Rutland and for contemptuously displaying their heads at Micklegate Bar in York. I think it's important that neither Edward nor Richard ever executed a woman, even a bitter enemy such as Margaret had been (in marked contrast to Henry VIII--I'm not sure about Henry VII).
Whether chivalry played any part in Edward's decision not to execute her, I don't know. It may simply never have occurred to him (or to Richard, later, with Margaret Beaufort et al.) to execute a woman. That's not the way it was done (unless you count the Lancastrians burning Joan of Arc for witchcraft). It's even possible that Edward's motive was less than charitable and he wanted her to suffer. Margaret of Anjou may well have wished that her enemies had executed her since she spent the rest of her life in misery. Or maybe I should say in "pure displeasure and melancholy."
At any rate, for whatever reason, neither Edward nor Richard ever executed a woman or a priest (which makes the idea that Richard would kill a pair of children all the more unlikely).
Carol
>
> Margaret of Anjou posed no threat once her son was dead. She had a connection to Louis XI that would have made anyone hesitate to execute her.
> What I said was that it 'needn't' have had anything to do with chivalry, not that it 'didn't. The possible political ramifications of executing her (ie, trouble with France) shouldn't be ignored.
Carol responds:
I doubt that her execution would have caused trouble with France. Louis XI seems to have had no interest in Margaret of Anjou's troubles once he no longer had a use for her. He did eventually ransom her from Edward, who had imprisoned her in the Tower, but Louis did little if anything to help her after that. She seems so have died in poverty. Louis made sure that he got her dogs, about all that she had left to take.
I agree that she posed no threat with her son dead, but she had certainly caused great grief to the Yorkists, who may have held her responsible for the deaths of the Duke of York and Edmund of Rutland and for contemptuously displaying their heads at Micklegate Bar in York. I think it's important that neither Edward nor Richard ever executed a woman, even a bitter enemy such as Margaret had been (in marked contrast to Henry VIII--I'm not sure about Henry VII).
Whether chivalry played any part in Edward's decision not to execute her, I don't know. It may simply never have occurred to him (or to Richard, later, with Margaret Beaufort et al.) to execute a woman. That's not the way it was done (unless you count the Lancastrians burning Joan of Arc for witchcraft). It's even possible that Edward's motive was less than charitable and he wanted her to suffer. Margaret of Anjou may well have wished that her enemies had executed her since she spent the rest of her life in misery. Or maybe I should say in "pure displeasure and melancholy."
At any rate, for whatever reason, neither Edward nor Richard ever executed a woman or a priest (which makes the idea that Richard would kill a pair of children all the more unlikely).
Carol
Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-20 19:58:38
Hi, Wednesday -
<irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
<irony off>
Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
<http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
Quote:
The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
lande under the kynge.
[1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
[Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
[1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
descended from King Richard's favourite?'
[1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
hog was Richard the Third.
[1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
land-under-the-hog
Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
know the real story?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
mute...."
Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
~Wednesday
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
Tudors....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
<irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
<irony off>
Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
<http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
Quote:
The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
lande under the kynge.
[1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
[Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
[1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
descended from King Richard's favourite?'
[1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
hog was Richard the Third.
[1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
land-under-the-hog
Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
know the real story?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
mute...."
Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
~Wednesday
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
Tudors....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-20 20:07:54
Cretin! LOL
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
>
> Quote:
>
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his¡Å councellors,¡Ålord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe¡Åand sir William Catesbie. ¡ÅThe Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the¡Åwild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> ¡ÆHis name¡Åwas Lovel.¡Ç ¡ÆWhat! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?¡Ç
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. ¡ÅThe
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
>
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it¡Çs
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
>
>
>
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Stephen -
> > >
> > > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
>
> Quote:
>
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his¡Å councellors,¡Ålord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe¡Åand sir William Catesbie. ¡ÅThe Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the¡Åwild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> ¡ÆHis name¡Åwas Lovel.¡Ç ¡ÆWhat! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?¡Ç
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. ¡ÅThe
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
>
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it¡Çs
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
>
>
>
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Stephen -
> > >
> > > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-20 21:47:57
Johanne Tournier wrote:
<snip>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website
> Quote:
> "The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog"
>
> "The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge. The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for making a small rime of three of his¡Å councellors,¡Ålord Louell, sir Richard Ratcliffe¡Åand sir William Catesbie. ¡ÅThe Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog, Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the¡Åwild boare, which was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
<snip>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone know the real story?
Carol responds:
William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. The judges who tried him were, according to Wikipedia, "[the] Dukes of Suffolk [and] Norfolk, the Earls of Surrey and Nottingham, the Viscounts Lovell and Lisle, three barons including Lord High Constable Thomas Stanley and five justices of the King's Bench, including chief justice William Hussey." This impressive collection of nobles, barons, and justices sentenced Colyngbourne, a commoner, to the horrible fate of hanging, drawing, and quartering. A Tudor historian, John Stow, has him crying "O Lord Jesus! yet more trouble!" as his intestines are pulled out, but I suspect that the story is apocryphal.
Since Colyngbourne, whose motives for treason are unclear, was Cecily Neville's chamberlain (or some such post), Richard asked her to replace him with his own man. (Whether she heeded his request or not, I don't know.)
In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
Carol
<snip>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website
> Quote:
> "The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog"
>
> "The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge. The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for making a small rime of three of his¡Å councellors,¡Ålord Louell, sir Richard Ratcliffe¡Åand sir William Catesbie. ¡ÅThe Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog, Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the¡Åwild boare, which was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
<snip>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone know the real story?
Carol responds:
William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. The judges who tried him were, according to Wikipedia, "[the] Dukes of Suffolk [and] Norfolk, the Earls of Surrey and Nottingham, the Viscounts Lovell and Lisle, three barons including Lord High Constable Thomas Stanley and five justices of the King's Bench, including chief justice William Hussey." This impressive collection of nobles, barons, and justices sentenced Colyngbourne, a commoner, to the horrible fate of hanging, drawing, and quartering. A Tudor historian, John Stow, has him crying "O Lord Jesus! yet more trouble!" as his intestines are pulled out, but I suspect that the story is apocryphal.
Since Colyngbourne, whose motives for treason are unclear, was Cecily Neville's chamberlain (or some such post), Richard asked her to replace him with his own man. (Whether she heeded his request or not, I don't know.)
In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-20 22:23:58
Hi, Carol -
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:48 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
[JLT] <snip 1st. part of my msg.>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think
it's another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does
anyone know the real story?
Carol responds:
William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the
contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable
correspondence with Henry Tudor. The judges who tried him were, according to
Wikipedia, "[the] Dukes of Suffolk [and] Norfolk, the Earls of Surrey and
Nottingham, the Viscounts Lovell and Lisle, three barons including Lord High
Constable Thomas Stanley and five justices of the King's Bench, including
chief justice William Hussey." This impressive collection of nobles, barons,
and justices sentenced Colyngbourne, a commoner, to the horrible fate of
hanging, drawing, and quartering. A Tudor historian, John Stow, has him
crying "O Lord Jesus! yet more trouble!" as his intestines are pulled out,
but I suspect that the story is apocryphal.
Since Colyngbourne, whose motives for treason are unclear, was Cecily
Neville's chamberlain (or some such post), Richard asked her to replace him
with his own man. (Whether she heeded his request or not, I don't know.)
In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not
for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
Carol
[JLT] Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I
hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that
was unusual?
I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of
doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself
a bit too seriously! Ouch!
Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
nobleman?
Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of
execution being used?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne_.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_,_.___
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZHI4
cjI5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
414> Reply via web post
<mailto:justcarol67@...?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20power%3F%20%28was
%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29> Reply to sender
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20
power%3F%20%28was%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29>
Reply to group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaGtu
OTA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Start a New Topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2anI1MWZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzE5NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OAR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
-> Messages in this topic (26)
Recent Activity:
.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
GhvNG9oBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-?o=6> New Members 2
.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Z
oOTNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-> New Photos 7
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGxhMjcyB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDB2b2JrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDQ4MDc4>
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
=19414/stime=1353448078/nc1=3848621/nc2=4025338/nc3=5008816>
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:48 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
[JLT] <snip 1st. part of my msg.>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think
it's another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does
anyone know the real story?
Carol responds:
William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the
contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable
correspondence with Henry Tudor. The judges who tried him were, according to
Wikipedia, "[the] Dukes of Suffolk [and] Norfolk, the Earls of Surrey and
Nottingham, the Viscounts Lovell and Lisle, three barons including Lord High
Constable Thomas Stanley and five justices of the King's Bench, including
chief justice William Hussey." This impressive collection of nobles, barons,
and justices sentenced Colyngbourne, a commoner, to the horrible fate of
hanging, drawing, and quartering. A Tudor historian, John Stow, has him
crying "O Lord Jesus! yet more trouble!" as his intestines are pulled out,
but I suspect that the story is apocryphal.
Since Colyngbourne, whose motives for treason are unclear, was Cecily
Neville's chamberlain (or some such post), Richard asked her to replace him
with his own man. (Whether she heeded his request or not, I don't know.)
In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not
for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
Carol
[JLT] Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I
hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that
was unusual?
I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of
doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself
a bit too seriously! Ouch!
Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
nobleman?
Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of
execution being used?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne_.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_,_.___
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZHI4
cjI5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
414> Reply via web post
<mailto:justcarol67@...?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20power%3F%20%28was
%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29> Reply to sender
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20
power%3F%20%28was%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29>
Reply to group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaGtu
OTA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Start a New Topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2anI1MWZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzE5NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OAR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
-> Messages in this topic (26)
Recent Activity:
.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
GhvNG9oBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-?o=6> New Members 2
.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Z
oOTNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-> New Photos 7
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGxhMjcyB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDB2b2JrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDQ4MDc4>
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
=19414/stime=1353448078/nc1=3848621/nc2=4025338/nc3=5008816>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-20 22:39:24
I know it was hideous but I think even worse was the case of the cook, named Roos, who was boiled to death (I cannot remember whether oil was used or water) at Smithfield in Fat Harry's reign....His crime was trying to poison his master...who survived but a guest died.
Johanne " this icky means of
> execution being used?"
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne_.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> _,_.___
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZHI4
> cjI5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> 414> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:justcarol67@...?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20power%3F%20%28was
> %20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29> Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20
> power%3F%20%28was%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29>
> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaGtu
> OTA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2anI1MWZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzE5NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OAR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
> -> Messages in this topic (26)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
> GhvNG9oBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Z
> oOTNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-> New Photos 7
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGxhMjcyB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDB2b2JrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDQ4MDc4>
> 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
> =19414/stime=1353448078/nc1=3848621/nc2=4025338/nc3=5008816>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Johanne " this icky means of
> execution being used?"
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne_.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> _,_.___
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZHI4
> cjI5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> 414> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:justcarol67@...?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20power%3F%20%28was
> %20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29> Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20
> power%3F%20%28was%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29>
> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaGtu
> OTA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2anI1MWZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzE5NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OAR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
> -> Messages in this topic (26)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
> GhvNG9oBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Z
> oOTNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-> New Photos 7
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGxhMjcyB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDB2b2JrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDQ4MDc4>
> 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
> =19414/stime=1353448078/nc1=3848621/nc2=4025338/nc3=5008816>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-20 22:41:36
I know it was hideous but I think even worse was the case of the cook, named Roos, who was boiled to death (I cannot remember whether oil was used or water) at Smithfield in Fat Harry's reign....His crime was trying to poison his master...who survived but a guest died.
Johanne " this icky means of
> execution being used?"
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne_.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> _,_.___
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZHI4
> cjI5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> 414> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:justcarol67@...?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20power%3F%20%28was
> %20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29> Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20
> power%3F%20%28was%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29>
> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaGtu
> OTA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2anI1MWZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzE5NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OAR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
> -> Messages in this topic (26)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
> GhvNG9oBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Z
> oOTNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-> New Photos 7
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGxhMjcyB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDB2b2JrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDQ4MDc4>
> 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
> =19414/stime=1353448078/nc1=3848621/nc2=4025338/nc3=5008816>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Johanne " this icky means of
> execution being used?"
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne_.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> _,_.___
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZHI4
> cjI5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> 414> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:justcarol67@...?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20power%3F%20%28was
> %20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29> Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20
> power%3F%20%28was%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29>
> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaGtu
> OTA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2anI1MWZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzE5NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OAR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
> -> Messages in this topic (26)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
> GhvNG9oBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Z
> oOTNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-> New Photos 7
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGxhMjcyB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDB2b2JrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDQ4MDc4>
> 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
> =19414/stime=1353448078/nc1=3848621/nc2=4025338/nc3=5008816>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-20 22:47:25
Hi Carol.....Yes.agreed..why did they, in this case Stow, alway overegg the pudding..How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I know it was hideous but I think even worse was the case of the cook, named Roos, who was boiled to death (I cannot remember whether oil was used or water) at Smithfield in Fat Harry's reign....His crime was trying to poison his master...who survived but a guest died.
>
> Johanne " this icky means of
>
> > execution being used?"
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne_.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _,_.___
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZHI4
> > cjI5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> > NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> > 414> Reply via web post
> >
> >
> > <mailto:justcarol67@?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20power%3F%20%28was
> > %20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29> Reply to sender
> >
> >
> > <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20
> > power%3F%20%28was%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29>
> > Reply to group
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaGtu
> > OTA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> > c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Start a New Topic
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
> > DMTM2anI1MWZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> > zZ0lkAzE5NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OAR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
> > -> Messages in this topic (26)
> >
> > Recent Activity:
> >
> > .
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
> > GhvNG9oBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> > GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-?o=6> New Members 2
> >
> > .
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Z
> > oOTNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> > Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-> New Photos 7
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGxhMjcyB
> > F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> > 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Visit Your Group
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDB2b2JrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDQ4MDc4>
> > 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
> > =19414/stime=1353448078/nc1=3848621/nc2=4025338/nc3=5008816>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I know it was hideous but I think even worse was the case of the cook, named Roos, who was boiled to death (I cannot remember whether oil was used or water) at Smithfield in Fat Harry's reign....His crime was trying to poison his master...who survived but a guest died.
>
> Johanne " this icky means of
>
> > execution being used?"
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne_.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _,_.___
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZHI4
> > cjI5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> > NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> > 414> Reply via web post
> >
> >
> > <mailto:justcarol67@?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20power%3F%20%28was
> > %20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29> Reply to sender
> >
> >
> > <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Abuse%20of%20
> > power%3F%20%28was%20RE%3A%20Did%20Richard%20kill%20%20Henry%20VI%3F%29>
> > Reply to group
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaGtu
> > OTA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> > c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Start a New Topic
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19365;_ylc=X3o
> > DMTM2anI1MWZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> > zZ0lkAzE5NDE0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OAR0cGNJZAMxOTM2NQ-
> > -> Messages in this topic (26)
> >
> > Recent Activity:
> >
> > .
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
> > GhvNG9oBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> > GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-?o=6> New Members 2
> >
> > .
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Z
> > oOTNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> > Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM0NDgwNzg-> New Photos 7
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGxhMjcyB
> > F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> > 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MzQ0ODA3OA--> Visit Your Group
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDB2b2JrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNDQ4MDc4>
> > 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
> > =19414/stime=1353448078/nc1=3848621/nc2=4025338/nc3=5008816>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-20 22:57:45
Carol earlier:
>
> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>
> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>
Johanne responded:
Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>
> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>
> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>
> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>
> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> nobleman?
>
> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
Carol responds:
I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
"The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
Carol
>
> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>
> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>
Johanne responded:
Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>
> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>
> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>
> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>
> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> nobleman?
>
> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
Carol responds:
I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
"The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
Carol
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-20 23:01:54
I think that's the important point here: while Margaret might have been the stronger character, without her husband or son she posed no threat as nobody would be interested in fighting for her. She might of course also have died of melancholy - which in her case, after her son's death, might even have been true.
Dorothea
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Margaret of Anjou posed no threat once her son was dead. She had a
connection to Louis XI that would have made anyone hesitate to execute her.
What I said was that it 'needn't' have had anything to do with chivalry, not
that it 'didn't. The possible political ramifications of executing her (ie,
trouble with France) shouldn't be ignored.
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:10:34 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her? Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Dorothea
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Margaret of Anjou posed no threat once her son was dead. She had a
connection to Louis XI that would have made anyone hesitate to execute her.
What I said was that it 'needn't' have had anything to do with chivalry, not
that it 'didn't. The possible political ramifications of executing her (ie,
trouble with France) shouldn't be ignored.
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:10:34 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Karen -
Well, if it wasn't chivalry, if vengeance was the order of the day, when
they captured Margaret, wouldn't they have probably executed her? Regardless
of whether she was a broken woman or not?
I don't know what else it would have been, other than mercy, even tho it
might be thought that she had suffered enough. After all, many people had
died, and many of them had died as a result of her actions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:20 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne
It needn't have had anything to do with chivalry. Without her son, Margaret
had nothing to fight for. Susan Higginbotham has extensively researched
Margaret's life. There are too many posts to list, but they can be found on
her blog here: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/
Karen
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:09:20 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Hi, Eileen & Marie -
It's an interesting thought, isn't it, that Edward and Richard spared
Margaret's life, who really was a more significant opponent to them than
poor Henry. That, at least, would seem to me to be an example of the
chivalric ideal in action.
What happened to Margaret afterward? Did she retire to a monastery?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-21 00:12:08
Carol, the key here is "]t]hat's not the way it was done". So, whether it
was because a king newly restored to his throne didn't particularly wish to
do anything to cause upset to the king of France or 'that's not the way it
was done', or perhaps a bit of both, chivalry needn't have been involved. A
decision as big as this, what to do with Margaret of Anjou, would have been
made using far more practical criteria, I'd have thought.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:58:19 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Margaret of Anjou posed no threat once her son was dead. She had a connection
to Louis XI that would have made anyone hesitate to execute her.
> What I said was that it 'needn't' have had anything to do with chivalry, not
that it 'didn't. The possible political ramifications of executing her (ie,
trouble with France) shouldn't be ignored.
Carol responds:
I doubt that her execution would have caused trouble with France. Louis XI
seems to have had no interest in Margaret of Anjou's troubles once he no
longer had a use for her. He did eventually ransom her from Edward, who had
imprisoned her in the Tower, but Louis did little if anything to help her
after that. She seems so have died in poverty. Louis made sure that he got
her dogs, about all that she had left to take.
I agree that she posed no threat with her son dead, but she had certainly
caused great grief to the Yorkists, who may have held her responsible for
the deaths of the Duke of York and Edmund of Rutland and for contemptuously
displaying their heads at Micklegate Bar in York. I think it's important
that neither Edward nor Richard ever executed a woman, even a bitter enemy
such as Margaret had been (in marked contrast to Henry VIII--I'm not sure
about Henry VII).
Whether chivalry played any part in Edward's decision not to execute her, I
don't know. It may simply never have occurred to him (or to Richard, later,
with Margaret Beaufort et al.) to execute a woman. That's not the way it was
done (unless you count the Lancastrians burning Joan of Arc for witchcraft).
It's even possible that Edward's motive was less than charitable and he
wanted her to suffer. Margaret of Anjou may well have wished that her
enemies had executed her since she spent the rest of her life in misery. Or
maybe I should say in "pure displeasure and melancholy."
At any rate, for whatever reason, neither Edward nor Richard ever executed a
woman or a priest (which makes the idea that Richard would kill a pair of
children all the more unlikely).
Carol
was because a king newly restored to his throne didn't particularly wish to
do anything to cause upset to the king of France or 'that's not the way it
was done', or perhaps a bit of both, chivalry needn't have been involved. A
decision as big as this, what to do with Margaret of Anjou, would have been
made using far more practical criteria, I'd have thought.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:58:19 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Margaret of Anjou posed no threat once her son was dead. She had a connection
to Louis XI that would have made anyone hesitate to execute her.
> What I said was that it 'needn't' have had anything to do with chivalry, not
that it 'didn't. The possible political ramifications of executing her (ie,
trouble with France) shouldn't be ignored.
Carol responds:
I doubt that her execution would have caused trouble with France. Louis XI
seems to have had no interest in Margaret of Anjou's troubles once he no
longer had a use for her. He did eventually ransom her from Edward, who had
imprisoned her in the Tower, but Louis did little if anything to help her
after that. She seems so have died in poverty. Louis made sure that he got
her dogs, about all that she had left to take.
I agree that she posed no threat with her son dead, but she had certainly
caused great grief to the Yorkists, who may have held her responsible for
the deaths of the Duke of York and Edmund of Rutland and for contemptuously
displaying their heads at Micklegate Bar in York. I think it's important
that neither Edward nor Richard ever executed a woman, even a bitter enemy
such as Margaret had been (in marked contrast to Henry VIII--I'm not sure
about Henry VII).
Whether chivalry played any part in Edward's decision not to execute her, I
don't know. It may simply never have occurred to him (or to Richard, later,
with Margaret Beaufort et al.) to execute a woman. That's not the way it was
done (unless you count the Lancastrians burning Joan of Arc for witchcraft).
It's even possible that Edward's motive was less than charitable and he
wanted her to suffer. Margaret of Anjou may well have wished that her
enemies had executed her since she spent the rest of her life in misery. Or
maybe I should say in "pure displeasure and melancholy."
At any rate, for whatever reason, neither Edward nor Richard ever executed a
woman or a priest (which makes the idea that Richard would kill a pair of
children all the more unlikely).
Carol
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-21 00:42:19
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, the key here is "]t]hat's not the way it was done". So, whether it was because a king newly restored to his throne didn't particularly wish to do anything to cause upset to the king of France or 'that's not the way it was done', or perhaps a bit of both, chivalry needn't have been involved. A decision as big as this, what to do with Margaret of Anjou, would have been made using far more practical criteria, I'd have thought.
Carol responds:
I don't think we're too far apart in our positions. Probably, Edward's motive in not executing her wasn't chivalry, exactly, except for the vestiges of chivalry which were more like custom--and which had completely died by the time Henry VIII started executing wives. But my point is that Margaret of Anjou had been a dangerous enemy, and Edward would have shown her no such "mercy" had she been a man. Also, I really doubt that Edward, who had just won two important victories (Barnet and Tewkesbury) and was now, with Edward of Lancaster dead (and Henry VI about to be) was in the least afraid of what the king of France thought. (This is Edward in his prime, after all; not the lazy, fat slouch he later became. The degeneration that we can see clearly at Picquigny hadn't begun.) Also, it was one thing for the Spider King to manipulate Warwick and Margaret into invading England and quite another for him to do it himself without cause.
Anyway, I don't think fear of Louis's reaction had anything to do with Edward's treatment of Margaret. I think that he considered imprisonment the proper punishment for a female traitor--or whatever you would call an ex-queen who brought bloodshed to England and made an enemy of her husband's loyal supporter, the Duke of York. If only Suffolk had never arranged that diabolical marriage. (Just my own opinion; I don't expect others to agree.)
Edward could have executed her but didn't. He could have set her free now that she was no longer a threat but didn't. He chose to imprison her, suggesting that he thought that she deserved punishment, but a woman's punishment, not a man's. And I don't doubt at all that he knew it was, for her, a fate worse than death.
Carol
>
> Carol, the key here is "]t]hat's not the way it was done". So, whether it was because a king newly restored to his throne didn't particularly wish to do anything to cause upset to the king of France or 'that's not the way it was done', or perhaps a bit of both, chivalry needn't have been involved. A decision as big as this, what to do with Margaret of Anjou, would have been made using far more practical criteria, I'd have thought.
Carol responds:
I don't think we're too far apart in our positions. Probably, Edward's motive in not executing her wasn't chivalry, exactly, except for the vestiges of chivalry which were more like custom--and which had completely died by the time Henry VIII started executing wives. But my point is that Margaret of Anjou had been a dangerous enemy, and Edward would have shown her no such "mercy" had she been a man. Also, I really doubt that Edward, who had just won two important victories (Barnet and Tewkesbury) and was now, with Edward of Lancaster dead (and Henry VI about to be) was in the least afraid of what the king of France thought. (This is Edward in his prime, after all; not the lazy, fat slouch he later became. The degeneration that we can see clearly at Picquigny hadn't begun.) Also, it was one thing for the Spider King to manipulate Warwick and Margaret into invading England and quite another for him to do it himself without cause.
Anyway, I don't think fear of Louis's reaction had anything to do with Edward's treatment of Margaret. I think that he considered imprisonment the proper punishment for a female traitor--or whatever you would call an ex-queen who brought bloodshed to England and made an enemy of her husband's loyal supporter, the Duke of York. If only Suffolk had never arranged that diabolical marriage. (Just my own opinion; I don't expect others to agree.)
Edward could have executed her but didn't. He could have set her free now that she was no longer a threat but didn't. He chose to imprison her, suggesting that he thought that she deserved punishment, but a woman's punishment, not a man's. And I don't doubt at all that he knew it was, for her, a fate worse than death.
Carol
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-21 00:57:04
I don't think we're that far apart either, Carol. In one way, Edward was
totally triumphant and in a stronger position than he'd been in his first
reign and so may have felt he had nothing to fear from anyone. I wouldn't
say he 'feared' Louis' reaction, just that he was aware that France and
Louis were there. The other point I made, about not openly and publicly
executing Henry VI because he had once been an annointed king, might have
extended to his queen as well. If you're saying Margaret of Anjou was never
in danger of facing execution, I agree. And I agree with your reasoning as
well, just adding a couple more points to consider.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:42:16 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, the key here is "]t]hat's not the way it was done". So, whether it was
because a king newly restored to his throne didn't particularly wish to do
anything to cause upset to the king of France or 'that's not the way it was
done', or perhaps a bit of both, chivalry needn't have been involved. A
decision as big as this, what to do with Margaret of Anjou, would have been made
using far more practical criteria, I'd have thought.
Carol responds:
I don't think we're too far apart in our positions. Probably, Edward's
motive in not executing her wasn't chivalry, exactly, except for the
vestiges of chivalry which were more like custom--and which had completely
died by the time Henry VIII started executing wives. But my point is that
Margaret of Anjou had been a dangerous enemy, and Edward would have shown
her no such "mercy" had she been a man. Also, I really doubt that Edward,
who had just won two important victories (Barnet and Tewkesbury) and was
now, with Edward of Lancaster dead (and Henry VI about to be) was in the
least afraid of what the king of France thought. (This is Edward in his
prime, after all; not the lazy, fat slouch he later became. The degeneration
that we can see clearly at Picquigny hadn't begun.) Also, it was one thing
for the Spider King to manipulate Warwick and Margaret into invading England
and quite another for him to do it himself without cause.
Anyway, I don't think fear of Louis's reaction had anything to do with
Edward's treatment of Margaret. I think that he considered imprisonment the
proper punishment for a female traitor--or whatever you would call an
ex-queen who brought bloodshed to England and made an enemy of her husband's
loyal supporter, the Duke of York. If only Suffolk had never arranged that
diabolical marriage. (Just my own opinion; I don't expect others to agree.)
Edward could have executed her but didn't. He could have set her free now
that she was no longer a threat but didn't. He chose to imprison her,
suggesting that he thought that she deserved punishment, but a woman's
punishment, not a man's. And I don't doubt at all that he knew it was, for
her, a fate worse than death.
Carol
totally triumphant and in a stronger position than he'd been in his first
reign and so may have felt he had nothing to fear from anyone. I wouldn't
say he 'feared' Louis' reaction, just that he was aware that France and
Louis were there. The other point I made, about not openly and publicly
executing Henry VI because he had once been an annointed king, might have
extended to his queen as well. If you're saying Margaret of Anjou was never
in danger of facing execution, I agree. And I agree with your reasoning as
well, just adding a couple more points to consider.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:42:16 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, the key here is "]t]hat's not the way it was done". So, whether it was
because a king newly restored to his throne didn't particularly wish to do
anything to cause upset to the king of France or 'that's not the way it was
done', or perhaps a bit of both, chivalry needn't have been involved. A
decision as big as this, what to do with Margaret of Anjou, would have been made
using far more practical criteria, I'd have thought.
Carol responds:
I don't think we're too far apart in our positions. Probably, Edward's
motive in not executing her wasn't chivalry, exactly, except for the
vestiges of chivalry which were more like custom--and which had completely
died by the time Henry VIII started executing wives. But my point is that
Margaret of Anjou had been a dangerous enemy, and Edward would have shown
her no such "mercy" had she been a man. Also, I really doubt that Edward,
who had just won two important victories (Barnet and Tewkesbury) and was
now, with Edward of Lancaster dead (and Henry VI about to be) was in the
least afraid of what the king of France thought. (This is Edward in his
prime, after all; not the lazy, fat slouch he later became. The degeneration
that we can see clearly at Picquigny hadn't begun.) Also, it was one thing
for the Spider King to manipulate Warwick and Margaret into invading England
and quite another for him to do it himself without cause.
Anyway, I don't think fear of Louis's reaction had anything to do with
Edward's treatment of Margaret. I think that he considered imprisonment the
proper punishment for a female traitor--or whatever you would call an
ex-queen who brought bloodshed to England and made an enemy of her husband's
loyal supporter, the Duke of York. If only Suffolk had never arranged that
diabolical marriage. (Just my own opinion; I don't expect others to agree.)
Edward could have executed her but didn't. He could have set her free now
that she was no longer a threat but didn't. He chose to imprison her,
suggesting that he thought that she deserved punishment, but a woman's
punishment, not a man's. And I don't doubt at all that he knew it was, for
her, a fate worse than death.
Carol
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-21 11:11:31
Dear Carol and Karen -
Hmmm . . .
Despite your proviso that it wasn't chivalry so much as "custom" (which I
would interpret as the residue of chivalric ideals which made it beyond the
pale to even consider the execution of a female in such a situation) - I
would submit respectfully that this was a living set of beliefs for these
men in which they had been trained, and not a mere residue. The fact that it
was an expression of chivalric ideals which would have been foremost in the
mind of Edward when he refrained from executing Margaret is supported by
your statement, Carol, that, had Margaret been a man there is no doubt that
she would have been executed - and speedily I would add, as were Somerset
and the three other leaders of the rebellion after Tewkesbury.
I think you're right, Karen, about the reluctance of Edward to openly
execute Henry, who was an anointed king. But the difference is that Henry
was really a harmless individual, at most a dangerous symbol around which
the rebels could coalesce and not a danger in himself. Yet they still
(likely) found a way in secret to get him out of the way permanently. This
was no doubt a "last resort" after many chances had been given and I am sure
it seemed that there was no chance for security or peace of the realm
without some way being found of disposing of him. I am equally sure that
some way could have been found of disposing of Margaret also, had Edward
primarily been motivated by vengeance and retribution. Instead they
exercised mercy - even tho it's true that that mercy may have been the
unkindest cut of all for the dispirited Margaret of Anjou.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:42 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, the key here is "]t]hat's not the way it was done". So, whether it
was because a king newly restored to his throne didn't particularly wish to
do anything to cause upset to the king of France or 'that's not the way it
was done', or perhaps a bit of both, chivalry needn't have been involved. A
decision as big as this, what to do with Margaret of Anjou, would have been
made using far more practical criteria, I'd have thought.
Carol responds:
I don't think we're too far apart in our positions. Probably, Edward's
motive in not executing her wasn't chivalry, exactly, except for the
vestiges of chivalry which were more like custom--and which had completely
died by the time Henry VIII started executing wives. But my point is that
Margaret of Anjou had been a dangerous enemy, and Edward would have shown
her no such "mercy" had she been a man. Also, I really doubt that Edward,
who had just won two important victories (Barnet and Tewkesbury) and was
now, with Edward of Lancaster dead (and Henry VI about to be) was in the
least afraid of what the king of France thought. (This is Edward in his
prime, after all; not the lazy, fat slouch he later became. The degeneration
that we can see clearly at Picquigny hadn't begun.) Also, it was one thing
for the Spider King to manipulate Warwick and Margaret into invading England
and quite another for him to do it himself without cause.
Anyway, I don't think fear of Louis's reaction had anything to do with
Edward's treatment of Margaret. I think that he considered imprisonment the
proper punishment for a female traitor--or whatever you would call an
ex-queen who brought bloodshed to England and made an enemy of her husband's
loyal supporter, the Duke of York. If only Suffolk had never arranged that
diabolical marriage. (Just my own opinion; I don't expect others to agree.)
Edward could have executed her but didn't. He could have set her free now
that she was no longer a threat but didn't. He chose to imprison her,
suggesting that he thought that she deserved punishment, but a woman's
punishment, not a man's. And I don't doubt at all that he knew it was, for
her, a fate worse than death.
Carol
Hmmm . . .
Despite your proviso that it wasn't chivalry so much as "custom" (which I
would interpret as the residue of chivalric ideals which made it beyond the
pale to even consider the execution of a female in such a situation) - I
would submit respectfully that this was a living set of beliefs for these
men in which they had been trained, and not a mere residue. The fact that it
was an expression of chivalric ideals which would have been foremost in the
mind of Edward when he refrained from executing Margaret is supported by
your statement, Carol, that, had Margaret been a man there is no doubt that
she would have been executed - and speedily I would add, as were Somerset
and the three other leaders of the rebellion after Tewkesbury.
I think you're right, Karen, about the reluctance of Edward to openly
execute Henry, who was an anointed king. But the difference is that Henry
was really a harmless individual, at most a dangerous symbol around which
the rebels could coalesce and not a danger in himself. Yet they still
(likely) found a way in secret to get him out of the way permanently. This
was no doubt a "last resort" after many chances had been given and I am sure
it seemed that there was no chance for security or peace of the realm
without some way being found of disposing of him. I am equally sure that
some way could have been found of disposing of Margaret also, had Edward
primarily been motivated by vengeance and retribution. Instead they
exercised mercy - even tho it's true that that mercy may have been the
unkindest cut of all for the dispirited Margaret of Anjou.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:42 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, the key here is "]t]hat's not the way it was done". So, whether it
was because a king newly restored to his throne didn't particularly wish to
do anything to cause upset to the king of France or 'that's not the way it
was done', or perhaps a bit of both, chivalry needn't have been involved. A
decision as big as this, what to do with Margaret of Anjou, would have been
made using far more practical criteria, I'd have thought.
Carol responds:
I don't think we're too far apart in our positions. Probably, Edward's
motive in not executing her wasn't chivalry, exactly, except for the
vestiges of chivalry which were more like custom--and which had completely
died by the time Henry VIII started executing wives. But my point is that
Margaret of Anjou had been a dangerous enemy, and Edward would have shown
her no such "mercy" had she been a man. Also, I really doubt that Edward,
who had just won two important victories (Barnet and Tewkesbury) and was
now, with Edward of Lancaster dead (and Henry VI about to be) was in the
least afraid of what the king of France thought. (This is Edward in his
prime, after all; not the lazy, fat slouch he later became. The degeneration
that we can see clearly at Picquigny hadn't begun.) Also, it was one thing
for the Spider King to manipulate Warwick and Margaret into invading England
and quite another for him to do it himself without cause.
Anyway, I don't think fear of Louis's reaction had anything to do with
Edward's treatment of Margaret. I think that he considered imprisonment the
proper punishment for a female traitor--or whatever you would call an
ex-queen who brought bloodshed to England and made an enemy of her husband's
loyal supporter, the Duke of York. If only Suffolk had never arranged that
diabolical marriage. (Just my own opinion; I don't expect others to agree.)
Edward could have executed her but didn't. He could have set her free now
that she was no longer a threat but didn't. He chose to imprison her,
suggesting that he thought that she deserved punishment, but a woman's
punishment, not a man's. And I don't doubt at all that he knew it was, for
her, a fate worse than death.
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 11:48:49
Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used that agile mind to invent parish registers!
To pick up a couple of points in the thread:
Colyngbourne was not the first person to be hung, drawn and quartered for treason during the Yorkist regime. On 20 Jan 1469 Henry Courtney and Thomas Hungerford suffered a similar fate and Edward IV personally attended (and possibly Richard who was involved in the trial). And the punishment was meant to last as long as possible - a skilled executioner could manage this, so C's last words are quite possible.
To 'judicially' kill an anointed King would have been a huge step, as Cromwell et al were to find out. It was easier by far to depose them (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI) and for them to 'die' - in captivity with a little help. As for Margaret, once her son was dead she was no threat; she could not rule in her own right. Better by far that she be 'traded' as part of Edward's pension from Louis. Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
Hilary
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Carol earlier:
>
> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>
> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>
Johanne responded:
Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>
> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>
> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>
> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>
> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> nobleman?
>
> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
Carol responds:
I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
"The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
Carol
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used that agile mind to invent parish registers!
To pick up a couple of points in the thread:
Colyngbourne was not the first person to be hung, drawn and quartered for treason during the Yorkist regime. On 20 Jan 1469 Henry Courtney and Thomas Hungerford suffered a similar fate and Edward IV personally attended (and possibly Richard who was involved in the trial). And the punishment was meant to last as long as possible - a skilled executioner could manage this, so C's last words are quite possible.
To 'judicially' kill an anointed King would have been a huge step, as Cromwell et al were to find out. It was easier by far to depose them (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI) and for them to 'die' - in captivity with a little help. As for Margaret, once her son was dead she was no threat; she could not rule in her own right. Better by far that she be 'traded' as part of Edward's pension from Louis. Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
Hilary
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Carol earlier:
>
> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>
> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>
Johanne responded:
Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>
> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>
> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>
> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>
> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> nobleman?
>
> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
Carol responds:
I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
"The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 12:03:31
Hi, Hilary
As another relatively new member of the Forum and longtime Ricardian, let me bid you welcome!
I am sure your skills come in handy when researching Richard and his times. Living in Nova Scotia, Canada, the most challenge I've had is in researching legal documents which in some cases go back to the 1700's but I can still read them. I don't do so well when looking at 15th. century documents! (Thinking of taking the correspondence course in reading private correspondence of the 15th. century that the Society offers.)
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 7:42 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used that agile mind to invent parish registers!
To pick up a couple of points in the thread:
Colyngbourne was not the first person to be hung, drawn and quartered for treason during the Yorkist regime. On 20 Jan 1469 Henry Courtney and Thomas Hungerford suffered a similar fate and Edward IV personally attended (and possibly Richard who was involved in the trial). And the punishment was meant to last as long as possible - a skilled executioner could manage this, so C's last words are quite possible.
To 'judicially' kill an anointed King would have been a huge step, as Cromwell et al were to find out. It was easier by far to depose them (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI) and for them to 'die' - in captivity with a little help. As for Margaret, once her son was dead she was no threat; she could not rule in her own right. Better by far that she be 'traded' as part of Edward's pension from Louis. Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
Hilary
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Carol earlier:
>
> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>
> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>
Johanne responded:
Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>
> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>
> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>
> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>
> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> nobleman?
>
> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
Carol responds:
I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
"The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
Carol
As another relatively new member of the Forum and longtime Ricardian, let me bid you welcome!
I am sure your skills come in handy when researching Richard and his times. Living in Nova Scotia, Canada, the most challenge I've had is in researching legal documents which in some cases go back to the 1700's but I can still read them. I don't do so well when looking at 15th. century documents! (Thinking of taking the correspondence course in reading private correspondence of the 15th. century that the Society offers.)
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 7:42 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used that agile mind to invent parish registers!
To pick up a couple of points in the thread:
Colyngbourne was not the first person to be hung, drawn and quartered for treason during the Yorkist regime. On 20 Jan 1469 Henry Courtney and Thomas Hungerford suffered a similar fate and Edward IV personally attended (and possibly Richard who was involved in the trial). And the punishment was meant to last as long as possible - a skilled executioner could manage this, so C's last words are quite possible.
To 'judicially' kill an anointed King would have been a huge step, as Cromwell et al were to find out. It was easier by far to depose them (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI) and for them to 'die' - in captivity with a little help. As for Margaret, once her son was dead she was no threat; she could not rule in her own right. Better by far that she be 'traded' as part of Edward's pension from Louis. Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
Hilary
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Carol earlier:
>
> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>
> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>
Johanne responded:
Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>
> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>
> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>
> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>
> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> nobleman?
>
> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
Carol responds:
I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
"The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 12:06:58
Hi Hilary and welcome...
I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> Â
> Hilary  Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Carol earlier:
> >
> > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> >
> > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> >
> Johanne responded:
>
> Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> >
> > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> >
> > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> >
> > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> >
> > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > nobleman?
> >
> > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
>
> Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
>
> At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
>
> Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
>
> "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> Â
> Hilary  Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Carol earlier:
> >
> > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> >
> > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> >
> Johanne responded:
>
> Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> >
> > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> >
> > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> >
> > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> >
> > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > nobleman?
> >
> > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
>
> Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
>
> At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
>
> Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
>
> "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 16:52:16
Hi Eileeen,
Thanks for the welcome, Apparently the Weasle (I love your name for him) was packed off to St Malo for the first part of his journey back to England but 'fell ill of a fever' (sounds like him doesn't it) so the Breton chancellor intervened on his behalf and Edward didn't follow it up. Seems that some are born lucky and some unlucky and we know which are which! I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
Hilary
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi Hilary and welcome...
I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> Â
> Hilary  Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Carol earlier:
> >
> > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> >
> > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> >
> Johanne responded:
>
> Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> >
> > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> >
> > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> >
> > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> >
> > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > nobleman?
> >
> > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
>
> Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
>
> At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
>
> Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
>
> "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks for the welcome, Apparently the Weasle (I love your name for him) was packed off to St Malo for the first part of his journey back to England but 'fell ill of a fever' (sounds like him doesn't it) so the Breton chancellor intervened on his behalf and Edward didn't follow it up. Seems that some are born lucky and some unlucky and we know which are which! I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
Hilary
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi Hilary and welcome...
I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> Â
> Hilary  Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Carol earlier:
> >
> > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> >
> > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> >
> Johanne responded:
>
> Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> >
> > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> >
> > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> >
> > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> >
> > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > nobleman?
> >
> > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
>
> Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
>
> At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
>
> Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
>
> "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 17:01:48
Hi Johanne,
Thanks for the welcome. I'm a bit international - I lived in Qld Aus for 10 years until recently. I find the writing hard too and it isn't always to do with the age of the document. Some 15th and 16th century stuff is easier to read than later; it all depends on the hand, as you probably know. Doesn't help when you're 'translating' obscure words in wills and it turns out they're bequeathing a sheep or a ewe! My family were tenant farmers on the Edgcote estate (site of battle and Pride and Prejudice) and I have their wills going back to 1540s - so they could well have been alive in 'our' Richard's time. And the dominant name - Richard, not a 'weasle' in sight. Hilary
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:03
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi, Hilary
As another relatively new member of the Forum and longtime Ricardian, let me bid you welcome!
I am sure your skills come in handy when researching Richard and his times. Living in Nova Scotia, Canada, the most challenge I've had is in researching legal documents which in some cases go back to the 1700's but I can still read them. I don't do so well when looking at 15th. century documents! (Thinking of taking the correspondence course in reading private correspondence of the 15th. century that the Society offers.)
Loyaulte me lie,
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 Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 7:42 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used that agile mind to invent parish registers!
To pick up a couple of points in the thread:
Colyngbourne was not the first person to be hung, drawn and quartered for treason during the Yorkist regime. On 20 Jan 1469 Henry Courtney and Thomas Hungerford suffered a similar fate and Edward IV personally attended (and possibly Richard who was involved in the trial). And the punishment was meant to last as long as possible - a skilled executioner could manage this, so C's last words are quite possible.
To 'judicially' kill an anointed King would have been a huge step, as Cromwell et al were to find out. It was easier by far to depose them (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI) and for them to 'die' - in captivity with a little help. As for Margaret, once her son was dead she was no threat; she could not rule in her own right. Better by far that she be 'traded' as part of Edward's pension from Louis. Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
Hilary
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Carol earlier:
>
> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>
> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>
Johanne responded:
Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>
> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>
> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>
> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>
> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> nobleman?
>
> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
Carol responds:
I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
"The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
Carol
Thanks for the welcome. I'm a bit international - I lived in Qld Aus for 10 years until recently. I find the writing hard too and it isn't always to do with the age of the document. Some 15th and 16th century stuff is easier to read than later; it all depends on the hand, as you probably know. Doesn't help when you're 'translating' obscure words in wills and it turns out they're bequeathing a sheep or a ewe! My family were tenant farmers on the Edgcote estate (site of battle and Pride and Prejudice) and I have their wills going back to 1540s - so they could well have been alive in 'our' Richard's time. And the dominant name - Richard, not a 'weasle' in sight. Hilary
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:03
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi, Hilary
As another relatively new member of the Forum and longtime Ricardian, let me bid you welcome!
I am sure your skills come in handy when researching Richard and his times. Living in Nova Scotia, Canada, the most challenge I've had is in researching legal documents which in some cases go back to the 1700's but I can still read them. I don't do so well when looking at 15th. century documents! (Thinking of taking the correspondence course in reading private correspondence of the 15th. century that the Society offers.)
Loyaulte me lie,
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 Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 7:42 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used that agile mind to invent parish registers!
To pick up a couple of points in the thread:
Colyngbourne was not the first person to be hung, drawn and quartered for treason during the Yorkist regime. On 20 Jan 1469 Henry Courtney and Thomas Hungerford suffered a similar fate and Edward IV personally attended (and possibly Richard who was involved in the trial). And the punishment was meant to last as long as possible - a skilled executioner could manage this, so C's last words are quite possible.
To 'judicially' kill an anointed King would have been a huge step, as Cromwell et al were to find out. It was easier by far to depose them (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI) and for them to 'die' - in captivity with a little help. As for Margaret, once her son was dead she was no threat; she could not rule in her own right. Better by far that she be 'traded' as part of Edward's pension from Louis. Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
Hilary
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Carol earlier:
>
> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>
> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>
Johanne responded:
Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>
> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>
> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>
> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>
> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> nobleman?
>
> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
Carol responds:
I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
"The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 17:48:33
Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.
http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi, Wednesday -
<irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
<irony off>
Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
<http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
Quote:
The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
lande under the kynge.
[1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
[Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
[1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
descended from King Richard's favourite?'
[1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
hog was Richard the Third.
[1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
land-under-the-hog
Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
know the real story?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
mute...."
Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
~Wednesday
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
Tudors....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi, Wednesday -
<irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
<irony off>
Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
<http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
Quote:
The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
lande under the kynge.
[1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
[Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
[1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
descended from King Richard's favourite?'
[1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
hog was Richard the Third.
[1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
land-under-the-hog
Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
know the real story?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
mute...."
Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
~Wednesday
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
Tudors....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 17:49:36
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary  ÂÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary  ÂÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 17:56:17
Thank you! Eileen
> Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
> Quote:
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his‥ councellors,‥lord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe‥and sir William Catesbie. ‥The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the‥wild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> ‘His name‥was Lovel.’ ‘What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?’
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. ‥The
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it’s
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Stephen -
> > >
> > > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
> Quote:
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his‥ councellors,‥lord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe‥and sir William Catesbie. ‥The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the‥wild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> ‘His name‥was Lovel.’ ‘What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?’
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. ‥The
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it’s
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Stephen -
> > >
> > > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 18:07:43
Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 18:33:11
There's also the fact his emblem was a wolfhound. Plus Lovel[l], Lowell, Loyal were used almost interchangeably, due to the non-standardization of spelling, and Dogs symbolized Loyalty.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.
http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi, Wednesday -
<irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
<irony off>
Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
<http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
Quote:
The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
lande under the kynge.
[1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
[Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
[1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
descended from King Richard's favourite?'
[1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
hog was Richard the Third.
[1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
land-under-the-hog
Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
know the real story?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
mute...."
Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
~Wednesday
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
Tudors....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.
http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi, Wednesday -
<irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
<irony off>
Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
<http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
Quote:
The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
lande under the kynge.
[1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
[Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
[1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
descended from King Richard's favourite?'
[1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
hog was Richard the Third.
[1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
land-under-the-hog
Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
know the real story?
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
mute...."
Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
~Wednesday
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
Tudors....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 18:37:06
Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 18:37:56
david rayner wrote:
>
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.Â
> <snip>
Carol responds:
Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site (lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). However, I thought that Lovell's coat of arms displayed a dog (hence the rhyme and the sneering epithet "the king's spaniel," a phrase for which I can't find the source).
At any rate, whether it's the derivation of the name or a wolf on the coat of arms, that's quite a stretch for "dog."
Carol
>
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.Â
> <snip>
Carol responds:
Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site (lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). However, I thought that Lovell's coat of arms displayed a dog (hence the rhyme and the sneering epithet "the king's spaniel," a phrase for which I can't find the source).
At any rate, whether it's the derivation of the name or a wolf on the coat of arms, that's quite a stretch for "dog."
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 18:42:20
Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
All fascinating stuff.....
No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary  ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
All fascinating stuff.....
No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary  ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 18:43:28
Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 18:51:29
Ishita...I said the same thing a little while ago on here...Everything considered, the splitting of loyalties over the Princes, the plotting of MB and Morton, along with the mentality of the nobles of that period Richard everything was loaded against Richard. The loss of his small son was a major blow to him as well which must have made his position all the more precarious...Tragic beyond belief..One of the occasions when the 'good guy' didnt win...Eileen
>
>
> Â
> Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.Â
> Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
>
> Ishita Bandyo
>
> Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> Facebook
>
> Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
>  Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook   Like
>   Get this email app! Â
> Designed with WiseStamp - Get yoursÂ
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary  ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
> Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.Â
> Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
>
> Ishita Bandyo
>
> Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
> www.ishitabandyo.com
>
> Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
>  Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook   Like
>   Get this email app! Â
> Designed with WiseStamp - Get yoursÂ
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary  ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 18:54:06
Carol earlier:
>
> Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site (lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). <snip>
Carol again:
Oops. Forgot the link:
http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
I have no idea whether this coat of arms is authentic.
Carol
>
> Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site (lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). <snip>
Carol again:
Oops. Forgot the link:
http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
I have no idea whether this coat of arms is authentic.
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 19:05:16
Well, a dog is just a mutated wolf.
Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:37
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
david rayner wrote:
>
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.Â
> <snip>
Carol responds:
Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site (lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). However, I thought that Lovell's coat of arms displayed a dog (hence the rhyme and the sneering epithet "the king's spaniel," a phrase for which I can't find the source).
At any rate, whether it's the derivation of the name or a wolf on the coat of arms, that's quite a stretch for "dog."
Carol
Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:37
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
david rayner wrote:
>
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.Â
> <snip>
Carol responds:
Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site (lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). However, I thought that Lovell's coat of arms displayed a dog (hence the rhyme and the sneering epithet "the king's spaniel," a phrase for which I can't find the source).
At any rate, whether it's the derivation of the name or a wolf on the coat of arms, that's quite a stretch for "dog."
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 19:06:40
Sorry, Carol, but this family of Lovells is unrelated to the Viscount.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:54
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Carol earlier:
>
> Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site (lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). <snip>
Carol again:
Oops. Forgot the link:
http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
I have no idea whether this coat of arms is authentic.
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:54
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Carol earlier:
>
> Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site (lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). <snip>
Carol again:
Oops. Forgot the link:
http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
I have no idea whether this coat of arms is authentic.
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 19:30:08
david rayner wrote:
>
> Sorry, Carol, but this family of Lovells is unrelated to the Viscount.
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. I suspect, though, that they're distantly related if the etymology of the last name is valid.
Do you know of an online image for Viscount Lovell's coat of arms, which someone said showed a wolfhound rather than a wolf? The Garter Arms escutcheon (if that's the word) does seem to show a wolf.
I still think that "Lovell our dog" is more likely to relate to the coat of arms or heraldic device than to the etymology (unless Colyngbourne was some sort of scholar) and I'm still wondering where the phrase "the king's spaniel" comes from. (The people who post about it seem to think that it was widespread in England during Richard's reign, but I suspect that they're mistaken.)
Carol
>
> Sorry, Carol, but this family of Lovells is unrelated to the Viscount.
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. I suspect, though, that they're distantly related if the etymology of the last name is valid.
Do you know of an online image for Viscount Lovell's coat of arms, which someone said showed a wolfhound rather than a wolf? The Garter Arms escutcheon (if that's the word) does seem to show a wolf.
I still think that "Lovell our dog" is more likely to relate to the coat of arms or heraldic device than to the etymology (unless Colyngbourne was some sort of scholar) and I'm still wondering where the phrase "the king's spaniel" comes from. (The people who post about it seem to think that it was widespread in England during Richard's reign, but I suspect that they're mistaken.)
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 19:56:22
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Well, a dog is just a mutated wolf.
>
> Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:Â
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
>
>
>
> http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
I find at least one Lovell coat of arms that depicts three wolf heads:
http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
not sure it's the same Lovell branch as Sir Francis was attached to.
However, crests and coats of arms often display visual puns -- wolves for Lovell, a talbot hunting dog for Talbot (earls of Shrewsbury -- Eleanor Talbot's family):
http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Talbot_%28dog%29
The Moore family sports the head of a blackamoor.
Katy
>
> Well, a dog is just a mutated wolf.
>
> Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:Â
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
>
>
>
> http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
I find at least one Lovell coat of arms that depicts three wolf heads:
http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
not sure it's the same Lovell branch as Sir Francis was attached to.
However, crests and coats of arms often display visual puns -- wolves for Lovell, a talbot hunting dog for Talbot (earls of Shrewsbury -- Eleanor Talbot's family):
http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Talbot_%28dog%29
The Moore family sports the head of a blackamoor.
Katy
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 20:20:10
Well, my interpretation is that the wolf crest is derived from the "Lupus" origin of the name. Lovell probably used this as a badge as well, much as Richard used the white boar as a badge and as the crest on his achievement.
The crest on the Luminarium page looks like a wolf; however the depiction of the achievement on the cover of A Dictionary of Heraldry draws it more like a hound:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0517566656
Arms on the Lovell tomb:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1024&bih=653&tbm=isch&tbnid=jgckyQ_amNA8xM:&imgrefurl=http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/977626-Does-anyone-like-old-churches&docid=ptFlXc6ipmOqTM&imgurl=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ANDYATOZ/2012/oxfordshire%252520july%2525202012%252520part%2525201/DSCN4203.jpg&w=800&h=600&ei=RDWtUN3DEKPS0QWjgoHgCg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=145&sig=111675237919074572421&page=2&tbnh=151&tbnw=185&start=20&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0,i:155&tx=104&ty=76
The curious arms impaled with Lovell's (buckets?) are unknown to me. They should be those of his wife, but she was a FitzHugh and these are not the arms of that family.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 19:30
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
david rayner wrote:
>
> Sorry, Carol, but this family of Lovells is unrelated to the Viscount.
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. I suspect, though, that they're distantly related if the etymology of the last name is valid.
Do you know of an online image for Viscount Lovell's coat of arms, which someone said showed a wolfhound rather than a wolf? The Garter Arms escutcheon (if that's the word) does seem to show a wolf.
I still think that "Lovell our dog" is more likely to relate to the coat of arms or heraldic device than to the etymology (unless Colyngbourne was some sort of scholar) and I'm still wondering where the phrase "the king's spaniel" comes from. (The people who post about it seem to think that it was widespread in England during Richard's reign, but I suspect that they're mistaken.)
Carol
The crest on the Luminarium page looks like a wolf; however the depiction of the achievement on the cover of A Dictionary of Heraldry draws it more like a hound:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0517566656
Arms on the Lovell tomb:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1024&bih=653&tbm=isch&tbnid=jgckyQ_amNA8xM:&imgrefurl=http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/977626-Does-anyone-like-old-churches&docid=ptFlXc6ipmOqTM&imgurl=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ANDYATOZ/2012/oxfordshire%252520july%2525202012%252520part%2525201/DSCN4203.jpg&w=800&h=600&ei=RDWtUN3DEKPS0QWjgoHgCg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=145&sig=111675237919074572421&page=2&tbnh=151&tbnw=185&start=20&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0,i:155&tx=104&ty=76
The curious arms impaled with Lovell's (buckets?) are unknown to me. They should be those of his wife, but she was a FitzHugh and these are not the arms of that family.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 19:30
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
david rayner wrote:
>
> Sorry, Carol, but this family of Lovells is unrelated to the Viscount.
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. I suspect, though, that they're distantly related if the etymology of the last name is valid.
Do you know of an online image for Viscount Lovell's coat of arms, which someone said showed a wolfhound rather than a wolf? The Garter Arms escutcheon (if that's the word) does seem to show a wolf.
I still think that "Lovell our dog" is more likely to relate to the coat of arms or heraldic device than to the etymology (unless Colyngbourne was some sort of scholar) and I'm still wondering where the phrase "the king's spaniel" comes from. (The people who post about it seem to think that it was widespread in England during Richard's reign, but I suspect that they're mistaken.)
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 20:20:22
I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
Liz
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Liz
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 20:22:26
The dog / Lovell metaphor came from his known allegiance to Gloucester. I.e., he was a 'faithful dog', not a heraldic one.
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, a dog is just a mutated wolf.
> >
> > Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:Â
> >
> > http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
>
>
>
> I find at least one Lovell coat of arms that depicts three wolf heads:
>
> http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
>
> not sure it's the same Lovell branch as Sir Francis was attached to.
>
> However, crests and coats of arms often display visual puns -- wolves for Lovell, a talbot hunting dog for Talbot (earls of Shrewsbury -- Eleanor Talbot's family):
>
> http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Talbot_%28dog%29
>
> The Moore family sports the head of a blackamoor.
>
> Katy
>
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, a dog is just a mutated wolf.
> >
> > Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:Â
> >
> > http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
>
>
>
> I find at least one Lovell coat of arms that depicts three wolf heads:
>
> http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
>
> not sure it's the same Lovell branch as Sir Francis was attached to.
>
> However, crests and coats of arms often display visual puns -- wolves for Lovell, a talbot hunting dog for Talbot (earls of Shrewsbury -- Eleanor Talbot's family):
>
> http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Talbot_%28dog%29
>
> The Moore family sports the head of a blackamoor.
>
> Katy
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 20:22:36
That's Karen's blog. I loved her review of Gregory's book.
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:37
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:37
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 20:37:06
I liked it too!
I liked the post "Richard and Me" exceedingly too!
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
That's Karen's blog. I loved her review of Gregory's book.
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:37
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
I liked the post "Richard and Me" exceedingly too!
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
That's Karen's blog. I loved her review of Gregory's book.
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:37
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
Btw, I found a blog called Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 20:47:33
More on the Lovell tomb:
http://churchmonumentssociety.org/Monument%20of%20the%20Month%20Archive/2010_04.html
The tomb probably contains Francis's grandfather, though the heraldry still doesn't explain the buckets, they certainly aren't Beaumont.
________________________________
From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:22
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
The dog / Lovell metaphor came from his known allegiance to Gloucester. I.e., he was a 'faithful dog', not a heraldic one.
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, a dog is just a mutated wolf.
> >
> > Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:Â
> >
> > http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
>
>
>
> I find at least one Lovell coat of arms that depicts three wolf heads:
>
> http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
>
> not sure it's the same Lovell branch as Sir Francis was attached to.
>
> However, crests and coats of arms often display visual puns -- wolves for Lovell, a talbot hunting dog for Talbot (earls of Shrewsbury -- Eleanor Talbot's family):
>
> http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Talbot_%28dog%29
>
> The Moore family sports the head of a blackamoor.
>
> Katy
>
http://churchmonumentssociety.org/Monument%20of%20the%20Month%20Archive/2010_04.html
The tomb probably contains Francis's grandfather, though the heraldry still doesn't explain the buckets, they certainly aren't Beaumont.
________________________________
From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:22
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
The dog / Lovell metaphor came from his known allegiance to Gloucester. I.e., he was a 'faithful dog', not a heraldic one.
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, a dog is just a mutated wolf.
> >
> > Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:Â
> >
> > http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
>
>
>
> I find at least one Lovell coat of arms that depicts three wolf heads:
>
> http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
>
> not sure it's the same Lovell branch as Sir Francis was attached to.
>
> However, crests and coats of arms often display visual puns -- wolves for Lovell, a talbot hunting dog for Talbot (earls of Shrewsbury -- Eleanor Talbot's family):
>
> http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Talbot_%28dog%29
>
> The Moore family sports the head of a blackamoor.
>
> Katy
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 21:37:12
It's the "achievement" I meant; couldn't think of the proper term, so said "emblem" figuring the heraldry experts would know what I meant ;-)
It is also the case that "v" and "w" and "y" were sometimes used interchangeably, making his name a pun on "loyal."
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
The dog / Lovell metaphor came from his known allegiance to Gloucester. I.e., he was a 'faithful dog', not a heraldic one.
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, a dog is just a mutated wolf.
> >
> > Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:Â
> >
> > http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
>
>
>
> I find at least one Lovell coat of arms that depicts three wolf heads:
>
> http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
>
> not sure it's the same Lovell branch as Sir Francis was attached to.
>
> However, crests and coats of arms often display visual puns -- wolves for Lovell, a talbot hunting dog for Talbot (earls of Shrewsbury -- Eleanor Talbot's family):
>
> http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Talbot_%28dog%29
>
> The Moore family sports the head of a blackamoor.
>
> Katy
>
It is also the case that "v" and "w" and "y" were sometimes used interchangeably, making his name a pun on "loyal."
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
The dog / Lovell metaphor came from his known allegiance to Gloucester. I.e., he was a 'faithful dog', not a heraldic one.
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, a dog is just a mutated wolf.
> >
> > Lovel's coat of arms contained no dogs or wolves, though it has 2 lions from the Holland quarter & the Burnell inescutcheon. However his achievement uses a large dog/wolf as the crest:Â
> >
> > http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/francislovell.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > http://kingrichardarmitage.rgcwp.com/author/r3foundation/
>
>
>
> I find at least one Lovell coat of arms that depicts three wolf heads:
>
> http://www.4crests.com/lovell-coat-of-arms.html
>
> not sure it's the same Lovell branch as Sir Francis was attached to.
>
> However, crests and coats of arms often display visual puns -- wolves for Lovell, a talbot hunting dog for Talbot (earls of Shrewsbury -- Eleanor Talbot's family):
>
> http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Talbot_%28dog%29
>
> The Moore family sports the head of a blackamoor.
>
> Katy
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 22:30:09
I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover 'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
Liz
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
Liz
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 22:34:16
I'm so glad I bought the books I did, years ago. Replacing them would be a small fortune. On the other hand, if we're ever starving, I could sell them off. Not that I want to, of course.... Now the question becomes: To whom do I bequeath them???
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover 'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
Liz
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover 'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
Liz
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 22:38:55
Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
All fascinating stuff.....
No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÃÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃ’â¬aàback to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > HilaryÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
All fascinating stuff.....
No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÃÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃ’â¬aàback to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > HilaryÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 22:41:13
Indeed - I have a stack. Sadly none of my kids has inherited the history bug. Perhaps the next generation? Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 22:34
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I'm so glad I bought the books I did, years ago. Replacing them would be a small fortune. On the other hand, if we're ever starving, I could sell them off. Not that I want to, of course.... Now the question becomes: To whom do I bequeath them???
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover 'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
Liz
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 22:34
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I'm so glad I bought the books I did, years ago. Replacing them would be a small fortune. On the other hand, if we're ever starving, I could sell them off. Not that I want to, of course.... Now the question becomes: To whom do I bequeath them???
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover 'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
Liz
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 23:34:39
Ishita
I'm the author of the blog in question and I was very pleased by your visits
and comments. I have a wide readership and welcome people with all sorts of
views. I wouldn't turn away those who might be 'of the opinion that Richard
was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch' (though I'm not sure that many of my
regular commenters actually hold that view). Nor do I turn away those who
have other views on Richard, including your own. The blog, given its name,
doesn't focus on Richard III and, in fact, I think I've posted about him
twice so far, once about his marriage to Anne and once about my own feelings
about him and my frustrations as a Ricardian. Generally, my readers are open
minded and, so far, no one has 'picked a fight' via comments. Should you
find that someone replies to your comment rudely, I would most certainly
step in. Rudeness (as opposed to discussion and debate) from one commenter
to another isn't something I'd be particularly pleased to see.
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:43:26 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard
was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed
the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
Btw, I found a blog called
Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-
it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments
there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous
monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly!
Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose
knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term
"enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to
take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped
with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the
Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor
Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning
of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual
death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were
able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even
Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville
didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard
kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold
of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle
was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back
to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the
contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable
correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole,
not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times -
I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely
that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of
doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a
bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of
execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my
statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to
invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one
noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a
commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and
quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn
the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in
the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that
Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was
passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal
(Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the
Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of
hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the
crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an
act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and
although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less
ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of
high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many
English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the
regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
I'm the author of the blog in question and I was very pleased by your visits
and comments. I have a wide readership and welcome people with all sorts of
views. I wouldn't turn away those who might be 'of the opinion that Richard
was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch' (though I'm not sure that many of my
regular commenters actually hold that view). Nor do I turn away those who
have other views on Richard, including your own. The blog, given its name,
doesn't focus on Richard III and, in fact, I think I've posted about him
twice so far, once about his marriage to Anne and once about my own feelings
about him and my frustrations as a Ricardian. Generally, my readers are open
minded and, so far, no one has 'picked a fight' via comments. Should you
find that someone replies to your comment rudely, I would most certainly
step in. Rudeness (as opposed to discussion and debate) from one commenter
to another isn't something I'd be particularly pleased to see.
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:43:26 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard
was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed
the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
Btw, I found a blog called
Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-
it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments
there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous
monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
Ishita Bandyo
Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly!
Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose
knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term
"enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to
take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped
with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the
Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor
Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning
of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual
death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were
able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
Eileen
I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even
Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville
didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard
kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>
> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold
of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle
was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>
> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back
to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > ÃÂ
> > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the
contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable
correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > >
> > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole,
not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > >
> > Johanne responded:
> >
> > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times -
I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > >
> > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely
that was unusual?
> > >
> > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of
doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a
bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > >
> > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > nobleman?
> > >
> > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of
execution being used?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my
statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to
invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> >
> > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one
noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a
commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and
quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn
the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> >
> > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in
the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that
Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was
passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal
(Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the
Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> >
> > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of
hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> >
> > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the
crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an
act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and
although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less
ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of
high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many
English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the
regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-21 23:57:05
Hi, Carol –
I’ve read about Lovell’s coat of arms just recently – the dog depicted was a
“talbot,” which a breed of hunting dog which is now extinct.
I found that interesting, because the name of the Wolf Man in the movie of
the same name was “Lawrence Talbot.” I wondered if the screenwriters in
Hollywood were aware that a talbot was a breed of hunting dog (almost a
wolf).
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
david rayner wrote:
>
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the
anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.Â
> <snip>
Carol responds:
Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of
the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site
(lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other
sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the
wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). However, I thought that
Lovell's coat of arms displayed a dog (hence the rhyme and the sneering
epithet "the king's spaniel," a phrase for which I can't find the source).
At any rate, whether it's the derivation of the name or a wolf on the coat
of arms, that's quite a stretch for "dog."
Carol
I’ve read about Lovell’s coat of arms just recently – the dog depicted was a
“talbot,” which a breed of hunting dog which is now extinct.
I found that interesting, because the name of the Wolf Man in the movie of
the same name was “Lawrence Talbot.” I wondered if the screenwriters in
Hollywood were aware that a talbot was a breed of hunting dog (almost a
wolf).
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
david rayner wrote:
>
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the
anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.Â
> <snip>
Carol responds:
Interesting, but I doubt that Colyngbourne would have known the history of
the Lovell name and the Latin derivation given on that site
(lupus/lupellus/Lovell) seems a bit iffy, though I've seen it on other
sources such as this one, which also purports to show the coat of arms (the
wolves are red, not silver Wikipedia indicates). However, I thought that
Lovell's coat of arms displayed a dog (hence the rhyme and the sneering
epithet "the king's spaniel," a phrase for which I can't find the source).
At any rate, whether it's the derivation of the name or a wolf on the coat
of arms, that's quite a stretch for "dog."
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 00:28:21
It's a great blog!
Of course both sides should be represented and not censored! That's what makes it interesting for the visitors! I was just pissed with the commentator for making equivocal comment like " malevolent unscrupulous monarch"! I am not gonna go pick a brawl though!!!
On my honor:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 21, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> Ishita
>
> I'm the author of the blog in question and I was very pleased by your visits
> and comments. I have a wide readership and welcome people with all sorts of
> views. I wouldn't turn away those who might be 'of the opinion that Richard
> was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch' (though I'm not sure that many of my
> regular commenters actually hold that view). Nor do I turn away those who
> have other views on Richard, including your own. The blog, given its name,
> doesn't focus on Richard III and, in fact, I think I've posted about him
> twice so far, once about his marriage to Anne and once about my own feelings
> about him and my frustrations as a Ricardian. Generally, my readers are open
> minded and, so far, no one has 'picked a fight' via comments. Should you
> find that someone replies to your comment rudely, I would most certainly
> step in. Rudeness (as opposed to discussion and debate) from one commenter
> to another isn't something I'd be particularly pleased to see.
>
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:43:26 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard
> was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed
> the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
> Btw, I found a blog called
> Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-
> it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments
> there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous
> monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
>
> Ishita Bandyo
>
> Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> Facebook
>
> Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly!
> Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
> Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
> Get this email app!
> Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose
> knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term
> "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to
> take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped
> with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the
> Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor
> Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning
> of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual
> death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were
> able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even
> Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville
> didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > Â
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard
> kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold
> of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle
> was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back
> to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the
> contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable
> correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole,
> not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times -
> I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely
> that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of
> doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a
> bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of
> execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my
> statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to
> invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one
> noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a
> commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and
> quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn
> the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in
> the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that
> Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was
> passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal
> (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the
> Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of
> hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the
> crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an
> act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and
> although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less
> ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of
> high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many
> English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the
> regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (68)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 2
> <
Of course both sides should be represented and not censored! That's what makes it interesting for the visitors! I was just pissed with the commentator for making equivocal comment like " malevolent unscrupulous monarch"! I am not gonna go pick a brawl though!!!
On my honor:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 21, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> Ishita
>
> I'm the author of the blog in question and I was very pleased by your visits
> and comments. I have a wide readership and welcome people with all sorts of
> views. I wouldn't turn away those who might be 'of the opinion that Richard
> was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch' (though I'm not sure that many of my
> regular commenters actually hold that view). Nor do I turn away those who
> have other views on Richard, including your own. The blog, given its name,
> doesn't focus on Richard III and, in fact, I think I've posted about him
> twice so far, once about his marriage to Anne and once about my own feelings
> about him and my frustrations as a Ricardian. Generally, my readers are open
> minded and, so far, no one has 'picked a fight' via comments. Should you
> find that someone replies to your comment rudely, I would most certainly
> step in. Rudeness (as opposed to discussion and debate) from one commenter
> to another isn't something I'd be particularly pleased to see.
>
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:43:26 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard
> was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed
> the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
> Btw, I found a blog called
> Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-
> it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments
> there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous
> monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
>
> Ishita Bandyo
>
> Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
> www.ishitabandyo.com
>
> Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly!
> Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
> Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
> Get this email app!
> Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose
> knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term
> "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to
> take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped
> with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the
> Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor
> Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning
> of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual
> death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were
> able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even
> Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville
> didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > Â
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard
> kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold
> of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle
> was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back
> to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the
> contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable
> correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole,
> not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times -
> I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely
> that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of
> doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a
> bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of
> execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my
> statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to
> invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one
> noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a
> commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and
> quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn
> the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in
> the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that
> Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was
> passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal
> (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the
> Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of
> hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the
> crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an
> act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and
> although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less
> ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of
> high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many
> English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the
> regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (68)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 2
> <
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 00:41:05
Thanks, Ishita. One of the things I most value about my readership is the
broad diversity of views.
Karen
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:19:55 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
It's a great blog!
Of course both sides should be represented and not censored! That's what
makes it interesting for the visitors! I was just pissed with the
commentator for making equivocal comment like " malevolent unscrupulous
monarch"! I am not gonna go pick a brawl though!!!
On my honor:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 21, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> Ishita
>
> I'm the author of the blog in question and I was very pleased by your visits
> and comments. I have a wide readership and welcome people with all sorts of
> views. I wouldn't turn away those who might be 'of the opinion that Richard
> was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch' (though I'm not sure that many of my
> regular commenters actually hold that view). Nor do I turn away those who
> have other views on Richard, including your own. The blog, given its name,
> doesn't focus on Richard III and, in fact, I think I've posted about him
> twice so far, once about his marriage to Anne and once about my own feelings
> about him and my frustrations as a Ricardian. Generally, my readers are open
> minded and, so far, no one has 'picked a fight' via comments. Should you
> find that someone replies to your comment rudely, I would most certainly
> step in. Rudeness (as opposed to discussion and debate) from one commenter
> to another isn't something I'd be particularly pleased to see.
>
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...
<mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:43:26 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard
> was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed
> the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
> Btw, I found a blog called
> Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-
> it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments
> there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous
> monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
>
> Ishita Bandyo
>
> Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> Facebook
>
> Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly!
> Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
> Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
> Get this email app!
> Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose
> knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term
> "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to
> take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped
> with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the
> Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor
> Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning
> of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual
> death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were
> able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even
> Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville
> didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > Â
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard
> kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get
hold
> of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle
> was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ
back
> to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to
the
> contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable
> correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole,
> not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times
-
> I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely
> that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of
> doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a
> bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means
of
> execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my
> statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to
> invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one
> noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being
a
> commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing
and
> quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn
> the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in
> the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that
> Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was
> passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal
> (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about
the
> Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of
> hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the
> crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an
> act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and
> although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less
> ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty
of
> high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many
> English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of
the
> regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (68)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 2
> <
broad diversity of views.
Karen
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:19:55 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
It's a great blog!
Of course both sides should be represented and not censored! That's what
makes it interesting for the visitors! I was just pissed with the
commentator for making equivocal comment like " malevolent unscrupulous
monarch"! I am not gonna go pick a brawl though!!!
On my honor:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 21, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> Ishita
>
> I'm the author of the blog in question and I was very pleased by your visits
> and comments. I have a wide readership and welcome people with all sorts of
> views. I wouldn't turn away those who might be 'of the opinion that Richard
> was a malevolent unscrupulous monarch' (though I'm not sure that many of my
> regular commenters actually hold that view). Nor do I turn away those who
> have other views on Richard, including your own. The blog, given its name,
> doesn't focus on Richard III and, in fact, I think I've posted about him
> twice so far, once about his marriage to Anne and once about my own feelings
> about him and my frustrations as a Ricardian. Generally, my readers are open
> minded and, so far, no one has 'picked a fight' via comments. Should you
> find that someone replies to your comment rudely, I would most certainly
> step in. Rudeness (as opposed to discussion and debate) from one commenter
> to another isn't something I'd be particularly pleased to see.
>
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...
<mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:43:26 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Eileen, I feel the same way. E4 left the country in such a mess that Richard
> was doomed from the beginning. The day he married Eleanor Butler he signed
> the death warrant of the Plantagenet line.
> Btw, I found a blog called
> Nevillefeast(http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/its-fiction-but-is-
> it-history/) and it seems most of the people (not the author) who comments
> there still of the opinion that Richard was a malevolent unscrupulous
> monarch...... I do not want to pick a fight but itching to:(
>
> Ishita Bandyo
>
> Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
> www.ishitabandyo.com
>
> Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly!
> Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
> Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
> Get this email app!
> Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose
> knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term
> "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to
> take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped
> with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the
> Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor
> Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning
> of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual
> death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were
> able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even
> Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville
> didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > Â
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard
> kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get
hold
> of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle
> was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ
back
> to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to
the
> contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable
> correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole,
> not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times
-
> I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely
> that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of
> doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a
> bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means
of
> execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my
> statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to
> invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one
> noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being
a
> commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing
and
> quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn
> the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in
> the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that
> Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was
> passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal
> (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about
the
> Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of
> hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the
> crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an
> act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and
> although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less
> ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty
of
> high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many
> English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of
the
> regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (68)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 2
> <
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 12:42:46
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 12:47:42
Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
Paul
On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 12:56:29
Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Paul
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:48, david rayner wrote:
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.
>
> http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
>
>
>
> Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
> Quote:
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?'
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
>>
>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Stephen -
>>>
>>> Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:48, david rayner wrote:
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.
>
> http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
>
>
>
> Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
> Quote:
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?'
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
>>
>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Stephen -
>>>
>>> Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:01:38
Knew Geofrey well. A lovely man, fierce supporter of Richard we had many pints together, arguing the smaller things of the period. His books are well worth the trip.
Paul
On 21 Nov 2012, at 20:20, liz williams wrote:
> I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
>
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
>> Â
>> Hilary
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>>
>> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>>
>> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
>>> ÃÂ
>>> HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Carol earlier:
>>>>
>>>> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>>>>
>>>> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>>>>
>>> Johanne responded:
>>>
>>> Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>>>>
>>>> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>>>>
>>>> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>>>>
>>>> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>>>>
>>>> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
>>>> nobleman?
>>>>
>>>> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
>>>
>>> Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
>>>
>>> At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
>>>
>>> "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 21 Nov 2012, at 20:20, liz williams wrote:
> I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
>
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
>> Â
>> Hilary
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Hi Hilary and welcome...
>>
>> I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
>>
>> Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
>>> ÃÂ
>>> HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Carol earlier:
>>>>
>>>> William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
>>>>
>>>> In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
>>>>
>>> Johanne responded:
>>>
>>> Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
>>>>
>>>> I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
>>>>
>>>> Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
>>>>
>>>> I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
>>>>
>>>> Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
>>>> nobleman?
>>>>
>>>> Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
>>>
>>> Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
>>>
>>> At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
>>>
>>> "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:12:16
Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:18:11
Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
Eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
Eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:23:03
Hilary...I have bit the bullet and purchased the book. Second-hand and £20 + postage. But Im sure I will enjoy it. Yes...the library can be handy, if you can get to one easily, but so many of my books I continuously refer to them so like to own them....I have alway spent a fair amount of money on book....but am wondering if I could ever justify spending £100 on Richards Coronation which I really want to own...Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover    'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> Â
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary  ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover    'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> Â
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary  ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:23:34
And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels Hilary
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels Hilary
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:25:13
I know Judy...a problem....no-one in m family would appreciate any of my books....Eileen
Now the question becomes: To whom do I bequeath them???
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
> I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover    'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> Â
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary  ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Now the question becomes: To whom do I bequeath them???
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
> I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover    'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> Â
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry Tudor back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary  ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:29:58
Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does everything have to be so graphic....?
When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂ
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂ
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:33:41
Richard was obviously not easily led astray or swayed by a pretty face....unlike his brother who kept his brains in his pants......Eileen
y interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> > Eileen
> >
> >  I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> > >
> > > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> > >
> > > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÆ'‚ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > HilaryÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > >
> > > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > > >
> > > > Johanne responded:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > > >
> > > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > > nobleman?
> > > > >
> > > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > > >
> > > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > > >
> > > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
y interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> > Eileen
> >
> >  I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> > >
> > > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> > >
> > > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÆ'‚ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > HilaryÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > >
> > > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > > >
> > > > Johanne responded:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > > >
> > > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > > nobleman?
> > > > >
> > > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > > >
> > > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > > >
> > > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:45:03
Hello Karen,
I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
It did not go down well.
I was told to:
take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
make George the Antichrist
make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
It did not go down well.
I was told to:
take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
make George the Antichrist
make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:52:01
Then I was right, by accident...
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Paul
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:48, david rayner wrote:
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.
>
> http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
>
>
>
> Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
> Quote:
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?'
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
>>
>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Stephen -
>>>
>>> Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Paul
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:48, david rayner wrote:
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.
>
> http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
>
>
>
> Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
> Quote:
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?'
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
>>
>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Stephen -
>>>
>>> Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 13:55:39
Thank you, Liz. I've never seen Karen's blog. But I've visited a couple of sites where just bringing up Richard, you get a dose of mean spirit and vitriol - and not just directed at him. Enough, I tend to avoid a lot of discussions....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-22 14:11:22
Johanne Tournier wrote:
//snip//
"It is noteworthy that Edward and Richard were, for the most part, quite a
merciful, only executing four of the ringleaders after Tewkesbury. Although
they did pull them out of sanctuary at Tewkesbury abbey after Edward had
promised to spare all the men who had sought sanctuary there after the
battle. It seems to me that Kendall is making excuses for Edward and Richard
on that point by saying that because the abbey didn't have especially
privileged sanctuary but only "low sanctuary" and because he really hadn't
meant to offer pardons to the ringleaders that it was acceptable procedure
to offer some sort of a trial before Richard as Constable and Norfolk as
Marshall and then immediately execute them."
Well, I know in the present-day British military the reference is to
"officers and men", perhaps this sort of thing is where it came from (just a
little bit snarky here)? The soldiers were considered to merely have been
"mislead", both literally and figuratively, while the officers were
responsible for the actions of those soldiers and, more importantly,
themselves. Therefore, any promise by Edward concerning the safety of any
Lancastrian soldiers taking refuge in Tewksbury Abbey, would automatically
NOT apply to the Lancastrian leaders.
A bit weasely perhaps, but then again, why didn't those "leaders" die
fighting at the head of their men?
Doug
//snip//
"It is noteworthy that Edward and Richard were, for the most part, quite a
merciful, only executing four of the ringleaders after Tewkesbury. Although
they did pull them out of sanctuary at Tewkesbury abbey after Edward had
promised to spare all the men who had sought sanctuary there after the
battle. It seems to me that Kendall is making excuses for Edward and Richard
on that point by saying that because the abbey didn't have especially
privileged sanctuary but only "low sanctuary" and because he really hadn't
meant to offer pardons to the ringleaders that it was acceptable procedure
to offer some sort of a trial before Richard as Constable and Norfolk as
Marshall and then immediately execute them."
Well, I know in the present-day British military the reference is to
"officers and men", perhaps this sort of thing is where it came from (just a
little bit snarky here)? The soldiers were considered to merely have been
"mislead", both literally and figuratively, while the officers were
responsible for the actions of those soldiers and, more importantly,
themselves. Therefore, any promise by Edward concerning the safety of any
Lancastrian soldiers taking refuge in Tewksbury Abbey, would automatically
NOT apply to the Lancastrian leaders.
A bit weasely perhaps, but then again, why didn't those "leaders" die
fighting at the head of their men?
Doug
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-22 14:30:27
Hi, Douglas -
I agree that one can reasonably make a distinction, especially regarding the
ringleaders of the Lancastrians, which I think Somerset et al were. On the
other hand, a bit weasly, yes. Edward had said that he would give a pardon
to all that were in sanctuary but then more or less reneged on his word. My
point is that I don't think that Richard would have fallen into that trap.
He would have said what he meant and meant what he said, in other words, and
if he intended to execute his opponents wouldn't have given them false hope.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne Tournier wrote:
//snip//
"It is noteworthy that Edward and Richard were, for the most part, quite a
merciful, only executing four of the ringleaders after Tewkesbury. Although
they did pull them out of sanctuary at Tewkesbury abbey after Edward had
promised to spare all the men who had sought sanctuary there after the
battle. It seems to me that Kendall is making excuses for Edward and Richard
on that point by saying that because the abbey didn't have especially
privileged sanctuary but only "low sanctuary" and because he really hadn't
meant to offer pardons to the ringleaders that it was acceptable procedure
to offer some sort of a trial before Richard as Constable and Norfolk as
Marshall and then immediately execute them."
Well, I know in the present-day British military the reference is to
"officers and men", perhaps this sort of thing is where it came from (just a
little bit snarky here)? The soldiers were considered to merely have been
"mislead", both literally and figuratively, while the officers were
responsible for the actions of those soldiers and, more importantly,
themselves. Therefore, any promise by Edward concerning the safety of any
Lancastrian soldiers taking refuge in Tewksbury Abbey, would automatically
NOT apply to the Lancastrian leaders.
A bit weasely perhaps, but then again, why didn't those "leaders" die
fighting at the head of their men?
Doug
I agree that one can reasonably make a distinction, especially regarding the
ringleaders of the Lancastrians, which I think Somerset et al were. On the
other hand, a bit weasly, yes. Edward had said that he would give a pardon
to all that were in sanctuary but then more or less reneged on his word. My
point is that I don't think that Richard would have fallen into that trap.
He would have said what he meant and meant what he said, in other words, and
if he intended to execute his opponents wouldn't have given them false hope.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne Tournier wrote:
//snip//
"It is noteworthy that Edward and Richard were, for the most part, quite a
merciful, only executing four of the ringleaders after Tewkesbury. Although
they did pull them out of sanctuary at Tewkesbury abbey after Edward had
promised to spare all the men who had sought sanctuary there after the
battle. It seems to me that Kendall is making excuses for Edward and Richard
on that point by saying that because the abbey didn't have especially
privileged sanctuary but only "low sanctuary" and because he really hadn't
meant to offer pardons to the ringleaders that it was acceptable procedure
to offer some sort of a trial before Richard as Constable and Norfolk as
Marshall and then immediately execute them."
Well, I know in the present-day British military the reference is to
"officers and men", perhaps this sort of thing is where it came from (just a
little bit snarky here)? The soldiers were considered to merely have been
"mislead", both literally and figuratively, while the officers were
responsible for the actions of those soldiers and, more importantly,
themselves. Therefore, any promise by Edward concerning the safety of any
Lancastrian soldiers taking refuge in Tewksbury Abbey, would automatically
NOT apply to the Lancastrian leaders.
A bit weasely perhaps, but then again, why didn't those "leaders" die
fighting at the head of their men?
Doug
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 14:40:19
My word Eileen - I thought it was only me who has to have 'my own library'. Yes I've looked at R's coronation too but ......... perhaps a small lottery win?
The Deceivers does seem to be a good 'conversion' book though. My husband, who's an engineer, picked it up one afternoon and it sold the WOR to him. He even read Richardson's book on the Nevilles - and no I wouldn't recommend you spend £20 on that!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:23
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I have bit the bullet and purchased the book. Second-hand and £20 + postage. But Im sure I will enjoy it. Yes...the library can be handy, if you can get to one easily, but so many of my books I continuously refer to them so like to own them....I have alway spent a fair amount of money on book....but am wondering if I could ever justify spending £100 on Richards Coronation which I really want to own...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover    'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> Â
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÃÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃ’â¬aàback to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > HilaryÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Deceivers does seem to be a good 'conversion' book though. My husband, who's an engineer, picked it up one afternoon and it sold the WOR to him. He even read Richardson's book on the Nevilles - and no I wouldn't recommend you spend £20 on that!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:23
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary...I have bit the bullet and purchased the book. Second-hand and £20 + postage. But Im sure I will enjoy it. Yes...the library can be handy, if you can get to one easily, but so many of my books I continuously refer to them so like to own them....I have alway spent a fair amount of money on book....but am wondering if I could ever justify spending £100 on Richards Coronation which I really want to own...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover    'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> Â
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> Â
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> Eileen
>
> Â I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > ÃÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> >
> > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> >
> > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃ’â¬aàback to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > HilaryÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > >
> > > Johanne responded:
> > >
> > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > >
> > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > nobleman?
> > > >
> > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > >
> > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > >
> > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > >
> > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-22 14:43:09
Johanne Tournier wrote:
//snip//
"Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion."
Two thoughts here:
1) Once Edward of Lancaster was dead, was not George then the Lancastrian
"heir", at least according to those papers that were later used as evidence
against him? Then there's the possibility that Edward of Lancaster might
just know a few things about what George did while allied to Warwick.Both
good reasons to make sure Edward died.
2) Following on that, I can't see Margaret telling Edward IV anything one
way or another about what may have taken place between Warwick and Clarence
or anything else, for that matter. How much value could Edward IV place in
the words of someone who had fought so long and hard against him and, most
likely, held Edward responsible for her only son's death?
"Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard."
"Esteem"? Frankly, I'd think "trust" might be a better substitute and much
more accurate!
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death."
Well, Kendall does state that Richard "bore an order", which says to me that
Edward IV was responsible for the ultimate decision, whether with or without
the advice of his Council. Had Richard been responsible, there would have
been no need for such an order. The order was directed to the Constable of
the Tower and HE would have been responsible for carrying out its'
constents, not Richard.
I suppose that as we have two "Constables" involved, one of England, the
other of the Tower, the original charge against Richard killing Henry VI
came from the possible conflation of the two seperate positions. Not unlike
the later confusion about the illegitimacy of Edward (V) and Edward IV.
"At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?"
Henry VI WAS an annointed King and that alone may have been Richard's sole
reason. Another poster (Judy?) mentioned that Chertsey was becoming a sort
of Lancastrian pilgrimage site, so there'd be that as well.
Doug
(sorry about the dealy in replying - holiday preps intervened)
//snip//
"Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion."
Two thoughts here:
1) Once Edward of Lancaster was dead, was not George then the Lancastrian
"heir", at least according to those papers that were later used as evidence
against him? Then there's the possibility that Edward of Lancaster might
just know a few things about what George did while allied to Warwick.Both
good reasons to make sure Edward died.
2) Following on that, I can't see Margaret telling Edward IV anything one
way or another about what may have taken place between Warwick and Clarence
or anything else, for that matter. How much value could Edward IV place in
the words of someone who had fought so long and hard against him and, most
likely, held Edward responsible for her only son's death?
"Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard."
"Esteem"? Frankly, I'd think "trust" might be a better substitute and much
more accurate!
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death."
Well, Kendall does state that Richard "bore an order", which says to me that
Edward IV was responsible for the ultimate decision, whether with or without
the advice of his Council. Had Richard been responsible, there would have
been no need for such an order. The order was directed to the Constable of
the Tower and HE would have been responsible for carrying out its'
constents, not Richard.
I suppose that as we have two "Constables" involved, one of England, the
other of the Tower, the original charge against Richard killing Henry VI
came from the possible conflation of the two seperate positions. Not unlike
the later confusion about the illegitimacy of Edward (V) and Edward IV.
"At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?"
Henry VI WAS an annointed King and that alone may have been Richard's sole
reason. Another poster (Judy?) mentioned that Chertsey was becoming a sort
of Lancastrian pilgrimage site, so there'd be that as well.
Doug
(sorry about the dealy in replying - holiday preps intervened)
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 14:43:44
So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does everything have to be so graphic....?
When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂ
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does everything have to be so graphic....?
When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂ
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-22 14:49:51
From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Just wanted to thank you for the information in your post! One of these days
I'll learn to read ALL the posts in a thread before replying!
Doug
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Just wanted to thank you for the information in your post! One of these days
I'll learn to read ALL the posts in a thread before replying!
Doug
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 15:17:47
In one episode of the Helen Mirren starring Elizabeth a hanging drawing and quartering is taking place in the background, but not far enough in the back as to be unseeable in all it's gory detail!
This is the series where Essex is beheaded in close up for our enjoyment!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:29, EileenB wrote:
> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does everything have to be so graphic....?
> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂ
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
>> Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>
>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
This is the series where Essex is beheaded in close up for our enjoyment!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:29, EileenB wrote:
> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does everything have to be so graphic....?
> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂ
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
>> Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>
>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 15:24:49
Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does everything have to be so graphic....?
> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does everything have to be so graphic....?
> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 15:26:26
is that the scene where they executed her poor doctor?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> In one episode of the Helen Mirren starring Elizabeth a hanging drawing and quartering is taking place in the background, but not far enough in the back as to be unseeable in all it's gory detail!
> This is the series where Essex is beheaded in close up for our enjoyment!
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:29, EileenB wrote:
>
> > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does everything have to be so graphic....?
> > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>
> >> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> >> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂ
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> >> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> >> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> In one episode of the Helen Mirren starring Elizabeth a hanging drawing and quartering is taking place in the background, but not far enough in the back as to be unseeable in all it's gory detail!
> This is the series where Essex is beheaded in close up for our enjoyment!
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:29, EileenB wrote:
>
> > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does everything have to be so graphic....?
> > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down" and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>
> >> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> >> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1 as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂ
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> >> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> >> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 15:26:42
I sympathise with you Hilary. A director who recently read my script told me she "missed the sardonic sense of humour Richard has in Shakespeare".
Keep fighting though! Remember how many publishers turned down Harry Potter before one saw the potential!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:45, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Keep fighting though! Remember how many publishers turned down Harry Potter before one saw the potential!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:45, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 15:28:33
NEVER EVER EVER GIVE UP PAUL....Eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I sympathise with you Hilary. A director who recently read my script told me she "missed the sardonic sense of humour Richard has in Shakespeare".
> Keep fighting though! Remember how many publishers turned down Harry Potter before one saw the potential!
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:45, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Hello Karen,
> > I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> > It did not go down well.
> > I was told to:
> > take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> > devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> > make George the Antichrist
> > make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> > make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> > BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> > Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> > Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> > I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> > question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> > I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> > anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> > none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> > were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> > thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> > all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> > Richard either.
> >
> > I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> > some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen said:
> > Judith
> >
> > My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> > have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> > would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> > though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> > and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> > of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> > such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> > can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> > points of view.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> > groups out there, and
> > as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> > frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I sympathise with you Hilary. A director who recently read my script told me she "missed the sardonic sense of humour Richard has in Shakespeare".
> Keep fighting though! Remember how many publishers turned down Harry Potter before one saw the potential!
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:45, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Hello Karen,
> > I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> > It did not go down well.
> > I was told to:
> > take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> > devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> > make George the Antichrist
> > make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> > make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> > BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> > Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> > Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> > I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> > question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> > I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> > anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> > none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> > were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> > thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> > all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> > Richard either.
> >
> > I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> > some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen said:
> > Judith
> >
> > My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> > have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> > would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> > though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> > and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> > of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> > such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> > can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> > points of view.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> > groups out there, and
> > as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> > frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 15:29:35
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 15:32:21
Judy, I am available:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:25 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> I know Judy...a problem....no-one in m family would appreciate any of my books....Eileen
>
> Now the question becomes: To whom do I bequeath them???
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> > I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover 'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> > Eileen
> >
> > I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > > Â
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> > >
> > > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> > >
> > > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > >
> > > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > > >
> > > > Johanne responded:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > > >
> > > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > > nobleman?
> > > > >
> > > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > > >
> > > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > > >
> > > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:25 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> I know Judy...a problem....no-one in m family would appreciate any of my books....Eileen
>
> Now the question becomes: To whom do I bequeath them???
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> > I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover 'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> > Eileen
> >
> > I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > > Â
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> > >
> > > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> > >
> > > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > >
> > > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > > >
> > > > Johanne responded:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > > >
> > > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > > nobleman?
> > > > >
> > > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > > >
> > > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > > >
> > > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 15:41:20
Thanks Hilary..I will bear that in mind. I have been hankering after The Deceivers for some time hence I paid a bit more than I was happy with. If I bought any of the others i.e. the Neville or the Woodvllles books I would not pay as much...But I shall keep my eyes opon for any bargains...Eileen
He even read Richardson's book on the Nevilles - and no I wouldn't recommend you spend £20 on that!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:23
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I have bit the bullet and purchased the book. Second-hand and £20 + postage. But Im sure I will enjoy it. Yes...the library can be handy, if you can get to one easily, but so many of my books I continuously refer to them so like to own them....I have alway spent a fair amount of money on book....but am wondering if I could ever justify spending £100 on Richards Coronation which I really want to own...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover    'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> > ÂÂ
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> > Eileen
> >
> >  I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> > >
> > > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> > >
> > > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÆ'‚ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > HilaryÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > >
> > > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > > >
> > > > Johanne responded:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > > >
> > > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > > nobleman?
> > > > >
> > > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > > >
> > > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > > >
> > > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
He even read Richardson's book on the Nevilles - and no I wouldn't recommend you spend £20 on that!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:23
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...I have bit the bullet and purchased the book. Second-hand and £20 + postage. But Im sure I will enjoy it. Yes...the library can be handy, if you can get to one easily, but so many of my books I continuously refer to them so like to own them....I have alway spent a fair amount of money on book....but am wondering if I could ever justify spending £100 on Richards Coronation which I really want to own...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover    'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> > ÂÂ
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> > ÂÂ
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> > Eileen
> >
> >  I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> > >
> > > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> > >
> > > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÆ'‚ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > HilaryÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > >
> > > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > > >
> > > > Johanne responded:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > > >
> > > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > > nobleman?
> > > > >
> > > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > > >
> > > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > > >
> > > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 16:12:26
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 16:15:51
Oooh, that sounds lovely, Judy! Go for it!
And maybe your illustrator can be used for other books about Richard and WotR.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@... <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
And maybe your illustrator can be used for other books about Richard and WotR.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@... <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 16:22:28
He's a National Treasure, located in Birmingham in the UK. His work is as good as the PreRaphaelites, when he does Gothic Revival. To get a peek, go on Etsy.com, by tomorrow (he's putting up some new pieces, later today) and check out StainedGlassical. If anyone could do a great memorial window for Richard, it's him....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Oooh, that sounds lovely, Judy! Go for it!
And maybe your illustrator can be used for other books about Richard and WotR.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@... <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Oooh, that sounds lovely, Judy! Go for it!
And maybe your illustrator can be used for other books about Richard and WotR.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@... <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 16:24:11
I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
watched any more.
In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
results. Much more tasteful. Don’t need all the gore – it sure doesn’t add
to the story. It’s just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
imho.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
everything have to be so graphic....?
> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
sandwiches.....:0)
> > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
the 15th century....:0/
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
watched any more.
In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
results. Much more tasteful. Don’t need all the gore – it sure doesn’t add
to the story. It’s just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
imho.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
everything have to be so graphic....?
> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
sandwiches.....:0)
> > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
the 15th century....:0/
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 16:24:13
Shudders!!!!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 16:40:42
I'll keep that in mind :-)
Judy
Harleian, Coronation, The York Records, repros of Caxton's printings of Le Morte D'Arthur and Raymon Lull's book of Chivalry, etc., plus books of hours from Mary of Burgundy, Hastings, the Duc de Berry et al. I used to have a two-volume Dispatches of the Milanese Ambassadors, which seems to have sprouted legs and wandered off.... I've also some great Arts and Crafts/Kelmscott editions (Chaucer, etc.) and some genuine William de Morgan and Wm. Morris/Edward Burne-Jones bits that will deserve loving homes, one day....
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, I am available:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:25 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> I know Judy...a problem....no-one in m family would appreciate any of my books....Eileen
>
> Now the question becomes: To whom do I bequeath them???
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> > I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover 'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> > Eileen
> >
> > I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > > Â
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> > >
> > > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> > >
> > > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > >
> > > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > > >
> > > > Johanne responded:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > > >
> > > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > > nobleman?
> > > > >
> > > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > > >
> > > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > > >
> > > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Judy
Harleian, Coronation, The York Records, repros of Caxton's printings of Le Morte D'Arthur and Raymon Lull's book of Chivalry, etc., plus books of hours from Mary of Burgundy, Hastings, the Duc de Berry et al. I used to have a two-volume Dispatches of the Milanese Ambassadors, which seems to have sprouted legs and wandered off.... I've also some great Arts and Crafts/Kelmscott editions (Chaucer, etc.) and some genuine William de Morgan and Wm. Morris/Edward Burne-Jones bits that will deserve loving homes, one day....
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, I am available:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:25 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> I know Judy...a problem....no-one in m family would appreciate any of my books....Eileen
>
> Now the question becomes: To whom do I bequeath them???
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> > I didn't realise this was the Antiques Road Show. I paid £6.99 for the book which sits by me now as I write and I shall indeed treasure it! It is a very good little book though so get it from a library if you can. I quote the cover 'I have come to believe that the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, of Lord Hastings and effectively, of Buckingham and Richard III himself were brought about through the collective scheming of three people' and they are of course Margaret Beaufort, John Morton and Thomas Stanley. It's written by a teacher so it's good to read and he quotes his sources well.
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 20:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I just looked on Amazon.co.uk for The Deceivers - one new copy at £140 from some company called D W Bookmart in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Four used copies a t£20 each. I think I'll have to try the library.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:07
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Eileen - I absolutely concur with your view- I don't know every document either it would occupy my whole life. Have you read that marvellous little book by Geoffrey Richardson called The Deceivers?Put that with JAH's Eleanor and I think it says it all. If Richard was guilty of anything it was being in the middle of a storm he stood little chance of controlling. I don't see him as a saint, just someone doing their best against enormous odds.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 17:49
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary...I do admit I don't know as much as some posters on here...whose knowledge is quite extraordinary, but someone on here once used the term "enthusiastic amateurs" ...love it..and as one of these I sometimes tend to take the simplistic view and as such can I say in my view the buck stopped with Edward...He has an awful lot to answer for in the downfall of the Plantagenets...One of his lowest points has to be his marriage to Eleanor Talbot and bigamous marriage to La Woodville. This signalled the beginning of the end and with Richard having to take most of the flak and eventual death because it opened cracks that Margaret Beaufort/Morton/the Weasle were able to crawl through. Well that is my opinion and Im sticking to it...
> > Eileen
> >
> > I have to admit I find E4 a very unlovely person when you dig down - even Ross in his E4 says by 1475 he was a 'despot'. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville didn't wield the influence many think she did by then?
> > > Â
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 12:06
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary and welcome...
> > >
> > > I never knew that...just unbelievable!....an unmissed opportunity to get hold of Weasle...Possibly Edward underestimated the problem that Weasle was....still....what a tragedy for the Plantagenets...Eileen
> > >
> > > Pity that lazy Edward did not ensure that the 'trading' of Henry TudorÃÂ back to England was carried out - it was part of the same agreement.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > HilaryÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 22:57
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > >
> > > > > William Colyngbourne probably did post the rhyme, but, Hollingshed to the contrary, he was executed for a very different reason, treasonable correspondence with Henry Tudor. <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, was executed for encouraging Henry Tudor to land at Poole, not for his all-too-memorable bit of doggerel.
> > > > >
> > > > Johanne responded:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, poor Colyngbourne!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just wondering if they hanged, drew and quartered in Yorkist times - I hadn't heard of any instances - and then Mr. Colyngbourne's case pops up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they have assigned so many worthies to judge his case? Surely that was unusual?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope it was much more treasonable behavior than creating that bit of doggerel! If it were the latter, it would suggest that Richard took himself a bit too seriously! Ouch!
> > > > >
> > > > > Was a commoner more likely to be hanged, drawn and quartered than a
> > > > > nobleman?
> > > > >
> > > > > Were there any other instances during Richard's day of this icky means of execution being used?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you were so distressed by his punishment that you overlooked my statement that he didn't die for a rhyme. He died for encouraging Tudor to invade England (and usurp the throne). So it really was treason.
> > > >
> > > > Why so many people were involved, I don't know. Maybe no one noble/baron/judge wanted to be responsible for sentencing him? But, yes, being a commoner meant that he would be hanged rather than beheaded, and the drawing and quartering part (invented, IIRC, by Edward I for a Welsh grandson of Llewellyn the Great) was, I think, specifically reserved for treason by a commoner.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, the treason was against Richard, but he had no direct hand in the trial unless he appointed the judges. The verdict *seems* to show that Stanley and Northumberland were still loyal to Richard when the sentence was passed in December 1484. Most of the others were either unquestionably loyal (Lovell, Norfolk, Surrey) or neutral (Suffolk and Lisle). I don't know about the Earl of Nottingham or the justices.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia (I know, I know) has an interesting article on the subject of hanging, drawing, and quartering that reads in part:
> > > >
> > > > "The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment, and although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of King Charles I."
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 16:54:20
Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
>
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore – it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
> > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
> > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
>
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore – it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
> > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
> > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:18:50
Perhaps gladiators at the next Olympics?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:19:59
Don't worry that wouldn't have happened to us - we'd have been burned at the stake!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:30:32
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:32:10
A word limit? Hilary are you in the UK or the US? i've never heard anything so daft - well apart from the suggestions about "refining" your plot. Did these suggestions come from an agent?
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:45
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hello Karen,
I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
It did not go down well.
I was told to:
take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
make George the Antichrist
make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:45
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hello Karen,
I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
It did not go down well.
I was told to:
take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
make George the Antichrist
make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:39:05
I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy, was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
watched any more.
In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
imho.
Loyaulte me lie,
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 EileenB
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
everything have to be so graphic....?
> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
sandwiches.....:0)
> > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
the 15th century....:0/
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
watched any more.
In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
imho.
Loyaulte me lie,
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 EileenB
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
everything have to be so graphic....?
> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
sandwiches.....:0)
> > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
the 15th century....:0/
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:40:46
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......:0)
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Don't worry that wouldn't have happened to us - we'd have been burned at the stake!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Don't worry that wouldn't have happened to us - we'd have been burned at the stake!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef sandwiches.....:0)
> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in the 15th century....:0/
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:43:55
OT ...Im glad Im not a youngster in today's world...I feel I have seen the best and it is just getting worse in every respect....OK..whinge over...Eileen
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
> Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> > OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore â€" it sure doesn't add
> > > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > > imho.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
> Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> > OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore â€" it sure doesn't add
> > > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > > imho.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:45:33
Oh I won't, Eileen, I won't!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 15:28, EileenB wrote:
> NEVER EVER EVER GIVE UP PAUL....Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> I sympathise with you Hilary. A director who recently read my script told me she "missed the sardonic sense of humour Richard has in Shakespeare".
>> Keep fighting though! Remember how many publishers turned down Harry Potter before one saw the potential!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:45, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Karen,
>>> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
>>> It did not go down well.
>>> I was told to:
>>> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
>>> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
>>> make George the Antichrist
>>> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
>>> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
>>> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
>>> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
>>> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
>>> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
>>> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
>>> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
>>> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
>>> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
>>> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>> Karen,
>>>
>>> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
>>> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
>>> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
>>> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
>>> Richard either.
>>>
>>> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
>>> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>>>
>>> Liz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Karen said:
>>> Judith
>>>
>>> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
>>> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
>>> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
>>> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
>>> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
>>> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
>>> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
>>> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
>>> points of view.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
>>> groups out there, and
>>> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
>>> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 15:28, EileenB wrote:
> NEVER EVER EVER GIVE UP PAUL....Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> I sympathise with you Hilary. A director who recently read my script told me she "missed the sardonic sense of humour Richard has in Shakespeare".
>> Keep fighting though! Remember how many publishers turned down Harry Potter before one saw the potential!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:45, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Karen,
>>> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
>>> It did not go down well.
>>> I was told to:
>>> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
>>> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
>>> make George the Antichrist
>>> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
>>> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
>>> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
>>> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
>>> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
>>> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
>>> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
>>> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
>>> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
>>> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
>>> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>> Karen,
>>>
>>> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
>>> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
>>> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
>>> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
>>> Richard either.
>>>
>>> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
>>> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>>>
>>> Liz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Karen said:
>>> Judith
>>>
>>> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
>>> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
>>> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
>>> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
>>> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
>>> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
>>> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
>>> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
>>> points of view.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
>>> groups out there, and
>>> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
>>> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:48:40
Well if Mrs Shades of Grey can start off with an e book and earn so much money and sell so many copies of what is apparently junk (I am pleased to say I have not read it), I'm sure people with talent should be able to get somewhere.
Trouble is, these days so many people just want dross.
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Trouble is, these days so many people just want dross.
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:53:45
Lol...It was rather strange Henry the Fat only had one sister..who we later saw bleeding to death from a haemorrhage of the lungs...on the floor.....but to tell you the truth I wasnt really fazed by all the rather strange goings on as I could not give a flying fig if Henry's story gets distorted or not. I did quite enjoy Anne Boelyn ripping Henry's gift, a necklace, to Jane Seymour, off her neck. I thought the actress who played Anne, sorry forget her name, was very good. The scenes of her when she first was taken to the Tower and she was stricken with panic and fear were quite realistic and moving. Poor Anne...another victim of the medieval version of Pol Pot....Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy,  was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don’t need all the gore â€" it sure doesn’t add
> to the story. It’s just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
> > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
> > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy,  was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don’t need all the gore â€" it sure doesn’t add
> to the story. It’s just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
> > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
> > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:55:05
Liz...this is a problem.....:0/
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well if Mrs Shades of Grey can start off with an e book and earn so much money and sell so many copies of what is apparently junk (I am pleased to say I have not read it), I'm sure people with talent should be able to get somewhere.
> Â
> Trouble is, these days so many people just want dross.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
> Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Karen,
> > I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> > It did not go down well.
> > I was told to:
> > take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> > devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> > make George the Antichrist
> > make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> > make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> > BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> > Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> > Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> > I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> > question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> > I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> > anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> > none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> > were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> > thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> > all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> > Richard either.
> >
> > I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> > some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > Karen said:
> > Judith
> >
> > My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> > have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> > would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> > though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> > and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> > of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> > such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> > can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> > points of view.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> > groups out there, and
> > as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> > frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well if Mrs Shades of Grey can start off with an e book and earn so much money and sell so many copies of what is apparently junk (I am pleased to say I have not read it), I'm sure people with talent should be able to get somewhere.
> Â
> Trouble is, these days so many people just want dross.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
> Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Karen,
> > I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> > It did not go down well.
> > I was told to:
> > take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> > devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> > make George the Antichrist
> > make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> > make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> > BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> > Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> > Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> > I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> > question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> > I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> > anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> > none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> > were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> > thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> > all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> > Richard either.
> >
> > I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> > some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > Karen said:
> > Judith
> >
> > My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> > have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> > would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> > though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> > and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> > of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> > such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> > can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> > points of view.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> > groups out there, and
> > as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> > frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:55:56
Yes, garbage sells easily - alas! A labour of love requires a discerning recipient....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Well if Mrs Shades of Grey can start off with an e book and earn so much money and sell so many copies of what is apparently junk (I am pleased to say I have not read it), I'm sure people with talent should be able to get somewhere.
Trouble is, these days so many people just want dross.
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Well if Mrs Shades of Grey can start off with an e book and earn so much money and sell so many copies of what is apparently junk (I am pleased to say I have not read it), I'm sure people with talent should be able to get somewhere.
Trouble is, these days so many people just want dross.
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:56:50
Sadly, this is just too true.
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well if Mrs Shades of Grey can start off with an e book and earn so much money and sell so many copies of what is apparently junk (I am pleased to say I have not read it), I'm sure people with talent should be able to get somewhere.
> Â
> Trouble is, these days so many people just want dross.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well if Mrs Shades of Grey can start off with an e book and earn so much money and sell so many copies of what is apparently junk (I am pleased to say I have not read it), I'm sure people with talent should be able to get somewhere.
> Â
> Trouble is, these days so many people just want dross.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:57:24
TV is doing what cinema no longer does with big budget movies, show it as it was/is and restrict the audience. Most movies are dumbed down for the 12A/13 rating. TV for the most part, outside the US, pushes the envelope more and more, particularly with violence, just look at the Spartacus series full of full frontal nudity [well in Europe that is] and slow motion decapitations!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 16:20, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
>
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 16:20, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
>
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:59:16
The best TV is very good indeed. The worst...well, 'nuff said.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV is doing what cinema no longer does with big budget movies, show it as it was/is and restrict the audience. Most movies are dumbed down for the 12A/13 rating. TV for the most part, outside the US, pushes the envelope more and more, particularly with violence, just look at the Spartacus series full of full frontal nudity [well in Europe that is] and slow motion decapitations!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 16:20, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
>
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV is doing what cinema no longer does with big budget movies, show it as it was/is and restrict the audience. Most movies are dumbed down for the 12A/13 rating. TV for the most part, outside the US, pushes the envelope more and more, particularly with violence, just look at the Spartacus series full of full frontal nudity [well in Europe that is] and slow motion decapitations!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 16:20, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
>
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 17:59:19
But Jonathan Rhys-Meyer never got fat!!!! :-)
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:39, liz williams wrote:
> I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy, was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:39, liz williams wrote:
> I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy, was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 18:05:56
Well thank God for that...the scene of him having...ummmm...engaging in solo sex was disturbing enough as it was....:0/
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> But Jonathan Rhys-Meyer never got fat!!!! :-)
> Paul
>
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:39, liz williams wrote:
>
> > I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy, was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> > Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> > on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> > close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> > watched any more.
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore – it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > 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 EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>
> >> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> >> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> >> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> >>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> >>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ÂÂ
> >>>
> >>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> >>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> >>> Eileen
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> But Jonathan Rhys-Meyer never got fat!!!! :-)
> Paul
>
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:39, liz williams wrote:
>
> > I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy, was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> > Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> > on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> > close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> > watched any more.
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore – it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > 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 EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>
> >> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> >> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> >> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> >>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebels  HilaryÂÂ
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> >>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ÂÂ
> >>>
> >>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> >>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> >>> Eileen
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 18:07:59
Didn't have red hair either.
Apparently they asked him if he'd dye it and he said no. I'd have told him "dye it or you don't get the role" (if only...) I don't understand why they didn't at least make him wear a wig and padding.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:59
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
But Jonathan Rhys-Meyer never got fat!!!! :-)
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:39, liz williams wrote:
> I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy, was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Apparently they asked him if he'd dye it and he said no. I'd have told him "dye it or you don't get the role" (if only...) I don't understand why they didn't at least make him wear a wig and padding.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:59
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
But Jonathan Rhys-Meyer never got fat!!!! :-)
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:39, liz williams wrote:
> I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy, was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 18:10:29
That was the episode where I started watching it again. I don't know how accurate it was (did they really keep postponing the excution because the French guy hadn't arrived?) but thought she was very good in that episode. I watched the series with Cromwell then more or less gave up.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:53
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Lol...It was rather strange Henry the Fat only had one sister..who we later saw bleeding to death from a haemorrhage of the lungs...on the floor.....but to tell you the truth I wasnt really fazed by all the rather strange goings on as I could not give a flying fig if Henry's story gets distorted or not. I did quite enjoy Anne Boelyn ripping Henry's gift, a necklace, to Jane Seymour, off her neck. I thought the actress who played Anne, sorry forget her name, was very good. The scenes of her when she first was taken to the Tower and she was stricken with panic and fear were quite realistic and moving. Poor Anne...another victim of the medieval version of Pol Pot....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy,  was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Donâ¬"t need all the gore â¬" it sure doesnâ¬"t add
> to the story. Itâ¬"s just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'?Ã As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
> > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃ’â¬aà Òâ¬aà HilaryÃ’â¬aÃ
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > >
> > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
> > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:53
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Lol...It was rather strange Henry the Fat only had one sister..who we later saw bleeding to death from a haemorrhage of the lungs...on the floor.....but to tell you the truth I wasnt really fazed by all the rather strange goings on as I could not give a flying fig if Henry's story gets distorted or not. I did quite enjoy Anne Boelyn ripping Henry's gift, a necklace, to Jane Seymour, off her neck. I thought the actress who played Anne, sorry forget her name, was very good. The scenes of her when she first was taken to the Tower and she was stricken with panic and fear were quite realistic and moving. Poor Anne...another victim of the medieval version of Pol Pot....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I only watched bits of The Tudors but thought James Frain was very good as Cromwell. I turned off in the very first episode when Fat Henry had a hissy fit because his uncle, an Ambassador in Italy,  was murdered by the French - yes I know ......
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:20
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Â
> I never watched either Elizabeth with Mirren or Blanchett. I put The Tudors
> on to see what it was about, and there was this poor guy being executed in
> close-up in a very bloodly and disturbing way. I turned it off and never
> watched any more.
>
> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> results. Much more tasteful. Donâ¬"t need all the gore â¬" it sure doesnâ¬"t add
> to the story. Itâ¬"s just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> imho.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> 'Elizabeth'?Ã As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> everything have to be so graphic....?
> > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃ’â¬aà Òâ¬aà HilaryÃ’â¬aÃ
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > >
> > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> sandwiches.....:0)
> > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> the 15th century....:0/
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-22 18:18:13
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Carol responds:
Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
Carol
>
> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Carol responds:
Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 18:24:50
Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
Carol responds:
Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and generous to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I read it. How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my comprehension.
Carol
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
Carol responds:
Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and generous to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I read it. How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my comprehension.
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 18:35:45
There's a wonderfully kind and charitable quality in Richard's letter. A
lesser Tudor would have insisted that she be parted from her head!
There is no way that could be interpreted negatively if one is judging it
without preconceptions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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, November 22, 2012 2:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared
exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of
humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth
)Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek.
Hilary
>
Carol responds:
Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and generous
to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I read it.
How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my comprehension.
Carol
lesser Tudor would have insisted that she be parted from her head!
There is no way that could be interpreted negatively if one is judging it
without preconceptions.
Loyaulte me lie,
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, November 22, 2012 2:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared
exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of
humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth
)Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek.
Hilary
>
Carol responds:
Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and generous
to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I read it.
How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my comprehension.
Carol
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-22 18:42:28
I'm not sure whether Kendall was making excuses or merely stating the facts when he said that Tewkesbury Abbey didn't have specially privileged sanctuary. By the 15th century there were only a few religious houses whose precincts were good sanctuary, and they had a proper papal charter to prove it - these included places like Westminster, St Martin's in London, Beaulieu, Durham and Abingdon. Byut even these places had sometimes proved too much temptation - the Duke of York had had the Duke of Exeter removed from Westminster Sanctuary in the 1450s, for instance. And in 1486, after having Humphrey Stafford and his men dragged out of Abingdon sanctuary, Henry VII leant on his justices to declare that it was unconstitutional (although the word wasn't in use) for the Pope to protect a traitor via sanctuaries in a sovereign state, and so even these privileged sanctuaries were no further use to political refugees.
Anyway, Tewkesbury wasn't one of these places. It's not clear to me that Edward tricked people into coming out of the church - they may just have been taken. And it may or may not be - as the Arrivall claims - that the men executed had been within the Abbey grounds but not actually in the church. The Arrivall tries to sanitize the proceedings, insisting that no one that Edward found in the actual church when he arrived was harmed, even though they had no legal protection. But an account written by another eyewitness describes a horrific scene of slaughter as the Yorkist soldiers pursued the fleeing Lancastrians into the abbey.
There were certainly many more than four men condemned to death, though some were pardoned and I couldn't say whether the figure of four executions is right or not. It's important not to look at medieval legal punishments as something that had to be applied in every case - the draconian punishments were there more as a frightener and a weapon of last resort than as an inevitable consequence of the crime. People usually got a pardon for a first, and even second, offence unless the crime was really shocking, and Edward normally pardoned people a first act of treason against him.
The Arrivall:
"And, where there were fledd into the sayd churche many of his rebels, in great nombar ----- or moo, hopynge there to have bene releyvyd and savyd from bodyly harme, he [King Edward] gave them all his fre pardon, albeit there ne was, ne had nat at any tyme bene grauntyd, any fraunchise to that place for any offendars agaynst theyr prince havynge recowrse thethar, but that it had bene lefull to the Kynge to have commaundyd them to have bene drawne out of the churche, and had done them to be executyd as his traytors, yf so had bene his pleasure."
BL Harleian MS 545:-
" . . . where the army of the foresaid King Edward IV, furiously entering into the monastery and town of Tewkesbury, spoiled a great many and carried away the monastery's goods and, entering that church by violence of hand, put to death and slew the wretches of the foresaid prince's army, as well in the cemetery as in the church, whereby the church was polluted so that neither mass nor any other divine office' could be performed there." The author remarks that the church was unable to be used until the Bishop sent his suffragan to reconsecrate it at the end of the month.
I imagine the Yorkist soldiers were too blood-crazed by the time they reached the abbey to be able to rein themselves in.
Marie
----
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "It is noteworthy that Edward and Richard were, for the most part, quite a
> merciful, only executing four of the ringleaders after Tewkesbury. Although
> they did pull them out of sanctuary at Tewkesbury abbey after Edward had
> promised to spare all the men who had sought sanctuary there after the
> battle. It seems to me that Kendall is making excuses for Edward and Richard
> on that point by saying that because the abbey didn't have especially
> privileged sanctuary but only "low sanctuary" and because he really hadn't
> meant to offer pardons to the ringleaders that it was acceptable procedure
> to offer some sort of a trial before Richard as Constable and Norfolk as
> Marshall and then immediately execute them."
>
> Well, I know in the present-day British military the reference is to
> "officers and men", perhaps this sort of thing is where it came from (just a
> little bit snarky here)? The soldiers were considered to merely have been
> "mislead", both literally and figuratively, while the officers were
> responsible for the actions of those soldiers and, more importantly,
> themselves. Therefore, any promise by Edward concerning the safety of any
> Lancastrian soldiers taking refuge in Tewksbury Abbey, would automatically
> NOT apply to the Lancastrian leaders.
> A bit weasely perhaps, but then again, why didn't those "leaders" die
> fighting at the head of their men?
> Doug
>
Anyway, Tewkesbury wasn't one of these places. It's not clear to me that Edward tricked people into coming out of the church - they may just have been taken. And it may or may not be - as the Arrivall claims - that the men executed had been within the Abbey grounds but not actually in the church. The Arrivall tries to sanitize the proceedings, insisting that no one that Edward found in the actual church when he arrived was harmed, even though they had no legal protection. But an account written by another eyewitness describes a horrific scene of slaughter as the Yorkist soldiers pursued the fleeing Lancastrians into the abbey.
There were certainly many more than four men condemned to death, though some were pardoned and I couldn't say whether the figure of four executions is right or not. It's important not to look at medieval legal punishments as something that had to be applied in every case - the draconian punishments were there more as a frightener and a weapon of last resort than as an inevitable consequence of the crime. People usually got a pardon for a first, and even second, offence unless the crime was really shocking, and Edward normally pardoned people a first act of treason against him.
The Arrivall:
"And, where there were fledd into the sayd churche many of his rebels, in great nombar ----- or moo, hopynge there to have bene releyvyd and savyd from bodyly harme, he [King Edward] gave them all his fre pardon, albeit there ne was, ne had nat at any tyme bene grauntyd, any fraunchise to that place for any offendars agaynst theyr prince havynge recowrse thethar, but that it had bene lefull to the Kynge to have commaundyd them to have bene drawne out of the churche, and had done them to be executyd as his traytors, yf so had bene his pleasure."
BL Harleian MS 545:-
" . . . where the army of the foresaid King Edward IV, furiously entering into the monastery and town of Tewkesbury, spoiled a great many and carried away the monastery's goods and, entering that church by violence of hand, put to death and slew the wretches of the foresaid prince's army, as well in the cemetery as in the church, whereby the church was polluted so that neither mass nor any other divine office' could be performed there." The author remarks that the church was unable to be used until the Bishop sent his suffragan to reconsecrate it at the end of the month.
I imagine the Yorkist soldiers were too blood-crazed by the time they reached the abbey to be able to rein themselves in.
Marie
----
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "It is noteworthy that Edward and Richard were, for the most part, quite a
> merciful, only executing four of the ringleaders after Tewkesbury. Although
> they did pull them out of sanctuary at Tewkesbury abbey after Edward had
> promised to spare all the men who had sought sanctuary there after the
> battle. It seems to me that Kendall is making excuses for Edward and Richard
> on that point by saying that because the abbey didn't have especially
> privileged sanctuary but only "low sanctuary" and because he really hadn't
> meant to offer pardons to the ringleaders that it was acceptable procedure
> to offer some sort of a trial before Richard as Constable and Norfolk as
> Marshall and then immediately execute them."
>
> Well, I know in the present-day British military the reference is to
> "officers and men", perhaps this sort of thing is where it came from (just a
> little bit snarky here)? The soldiers were considered to merely have been
> "mislead", both literally and figuratively, while the officers were
> responsible for the actions of those soldiers and, more importantly,
> themselves. Therefore, any promise by Edward concerning the safety of any
> Lancastrian soldiers taking refuge in Tewksbury Abbey, would automatically
> NOT apply to the Lancastrian leaders.
> A bit weasely perhaps, but then again, why didn't those "leaders" die
> fighting at the head of their men?
> Doug
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-22 19:02:05
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> //snip//
> "Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
> of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> Edward.
Kendall doesn't say Clarence killed Prince Edward, he merely follows Warkworth's claim that Clarence deliberately failed to save the Prince when he had the chance.
Marie
They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
> So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
> of rebellion."
>
> Two thoughts here:
> 1) Once Edward of Lancaster was dead, was not George then the Lancastrian
> "heir", at least according to those papers that were later used as evidence
> against him? Then there's the possibility that Edward of Lancaster might
> just know a few things about what George did while allied to Warwick.Both
> good reasons to make sure Edward died.
Yes, according to the deal done with the Lancastrians, George was the next in line to the throne after Prince Edward. But I'm not convinced by Warkworth's account. Apart from anything else, the author was to my mind almost certainly not at Tewkesbury. Also, that anti-Yorkist eye-witness account I referred to, and quoted, in my last post, contains no such suggestion, viz "Lord Edwarde, prince of Kynge Henry, in the felde of Gastum besyde Tewkesbery, slayne and buryed in ye mydste of ye covent quiere in ye monastery ther : for whom god worketh."
This sort of version of events, in which every prominent individual is personally slain by a star player from the opposing side, makes for good drama but is not to be taken seriously.
Marie
> 2) Following on that, I can't see Margaret telling Edward IV anything one
> way or another about what may have taken place between Warwick and Clarence
> or anything else, for that matter. How much value could Edward IV place in
> the words of someone who had fought so long and hard against him and, most
> likely, held Edward responsible for her only son's death?
>
> "Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> 1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
> the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard."
>
> "Esteem"? Frankly, I'd think "trust" might be a better substitute and much
> more accurate!
>
> "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
> of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
> the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
> From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
> his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
> that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
> text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death."
>
> Well, Kendall does state that Richard "bore an order", which says to me that
> Edward IV was responsible for the ultimate decision, whether with or without
> the advice of his Council. Had Richard been responsible, there would have
> been no need for such an order. The order was directed to the Constable of
> the Tower and HE would have been responsible for carrying out its'
> constents, not Richard.
> I suppose that as we have two "Constables" involved, one of England, the
> other of the Tower, the original charge against Richard killing Henry VI
> came from the possible conflation of the two seperate positions. Not unlike
> the later confusion about the illegitimacy of Edward (V) and Edward IV.
As I wrote in a previous post, this is ALL CONJECTURE on Kendall's part. King Edward's line was that Henry died of natural causes. We have NO record of a council meeting, a warrant or anything else, and later writers hostile to Richard don't suggest any such thing - this suggestion, as I understand it, was first made by James Gairdner.
I suppose if Edward treated Henry's death as an execution (albeit secret) for treason, then he might have involved his council and his lord constable, but it is highly conjectural. If you want to keep something secret you surely involve as few people as possible.
I am still working on sources for the events, but it does look to me, despite Warkworth and the later writers, as though:-
a) Edward and Richard entered London on Tuesday 21st
b) Edward and Richard left London on the morning of Wed 22nd
c) King Henry died either on the 23rd or during the night of 22nd-23rd.
In other words, Richard was in Kent when Henry VI died. Even More remarked in puzzlement that Edward would not have asked his younger brother to do the deed - it was just not the way things happened.
But I will finish ferreting into sources before trying to explain my reasoning properly.
Marie
>
> "At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?"
>
> Henry VI WAS an annointed King and that alone may have been Richard's sole
> reason. Another poster (Judy?) mentioned that Chertsey was becoming a sort
> of Lancastrian pilgrimage site, so there'd be that as well.
>
> Doug
> (sorry about the dealy in replying - holiday preps intervened)
>
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> //snip//
> "Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
> after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
> been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
> of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
> Edward.
Kendall doesn't say Clarence killed Prince Edward, he merely follows Warkworth's claim that Clarence deliberately failed to save the Prince when he had the chance.
Marie
They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
> So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
> the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
> of rebellion."
>
> Two thoughts here:
> 1) Once Edward of Lancaster was dead, was not George then the Lancastrian
> "heir", at least according to those papers that were later used as evidence
> against him? Then there's the possibility that Edward of Lancaster might
> just know a few things about what George did while allied to Warwick.Both
> good reasons to make sure Edward died.
Yes, according to the deal done with the Lancastrians, George was the next in line to the throne after Prince Edward. But I'm not convinced by Warkworth's account. Apart from anything else, the author was to my mind almost certainly not at Tewkesbury. Also, that anti-Yorkist eye-witness account I referred to, and quoted, in my last post, contains no such suggestion, viz "Lord Edwarde, prince of Kynge Henry, in the felde of Gastum besyde Tewkesbery, slayne and buryed in ye mydste of ye covent quiere in ye monastery ther : for whom god worketh."
This sort of version of events, in which every prominent individual is personally slain by a star player from the opposing side, makes for good drama but is not to be taken seriously.
Marie
> 2) Following on that, I can't see Margaret telling Edward IV anything one
> way or another about what may have taken place between Warwick and Clarence
> or anything else, for that matter. How much value could Edward IV place in
> the words of someone who had fought so long and hard against him and, most
> likely, held Edward responsible for her only son's death?
>
> "Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
> 1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
> honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
> Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
> the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
> the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard."
>
> "Esteem"? Frankly, I'd think "trust" might be a better substitute and much
> more accurate!
>
> "That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
> of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
> delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
> Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
> out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
> strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
> surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
> it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
> the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
> From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
> than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
> his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
> that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
> sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
> text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death."
>
> Well, Kendall does state that Richard "bore an order", which says to me that
> Edward IV was responsible for the ultimate decision, whether with or without
> the advice of his Council. Had Richard been responsible, there would have
> been no need for such an order. The order was directed to the Constable of
> the Tower and HE would have been responsible for carrying out its'
> constents, not Richard.
> I suppose that as we have two "Constables" involved, one of England, the
> other of the Tower, the original charge against Richard killing Henry VI
> came from the possible conflation of the two seperate positions. Not unlike
> the later confusion about the illegitimacy of Edward (V) and Edward IV.
As I wrote in a previous post, this is ALL CONJECTURE on Kendall's part. King Edward's line was that Henry died of natural causes. We have NO record of a council meeting, a warrant or anything else, and later writers hostile to Richard don't suggest any such thing - this suggestion, as I understand it, was first made by James Gairdner.
I suppose if Edward treated Henry's death as an execution (albeit secret) for treason, then he might have involved his council and his lord constable, but it is highly conjectural. If you want to keep something secret you surely involve as few people as possible.
I am still working on sources for the events, but it does look to me, despite Warkworth and the later writers, as though:-
a) Edward and Richard entered London on Tuesday 21st
b) Edward and Richard left London on the morning of Wed 22nd
c) King Henry died either on the 23rd or during the night of 22nd-23rd.
In other words, Richard was in Kent when Henry VI died. Even More remarked in puzzlement that Edward would not have asked his younger brother to do the deed - it was just not the way things happened.
But I will finish ferreting into sources before trying to explain my reasoning properly.
Marie
>
> "At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
> interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
> tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
> with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
> Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
> seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?"
>
> Henry VI WAS an annointed King and that alone may have been Richard's sole
> reason. Another poster (Judy?) mentioned that Chertsey was becoming a sort
> of Lancastrian pilgrimage site, so there'd be that as well.
>
> Doug
> (sorry about the dealy in replying - holiday preps intervened)
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-22 19:03:11
Oh, thanks Doug. Actually I just replied to your last post before seeing this.
Marie
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> Just wanted to thank you for the information in your post! One of these days
> I'll learn to read ALL the posts in a thread before replying!
> Doug
>
Marie
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> Just wanted to thank you for the information in your post! One of these days
> I'll learn to read ALL the posts in a thread before replying!
> Doug
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 21:26:09
It seems like Richard had that dry, ironic sense of humor that can be so easily mistaken for sarcasm or nastiness by those who didn't know him -- or those who were deadly serious about every blessed thing around them.
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 21:36:28
I don't know whether to be glad or disappointed none of the professional executioners left behind their highly detailed memoirs. They could have called them, "I Miss the Screamin'. Vols. I-III'".
~Wednesday
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
~Wednesday
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 22:08:44
It's because Richard didn't use emoticons. If he'd just told his clerk to ink in some emoticons, all would be well, blast it.
:)
There.
~Wednesday
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and generous to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I read it. How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my comprehension.
>
> Carol
>
:)
There.
~Wednesday
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and generous to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I read it. How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my comprehension.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-22 22:29:28
Hi, Douglas & Marie!
I started this before your email was delivered to my inbox, Marie -
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne Tournier wrote:
//snip//
"Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion."
Doug wrote:
Two thoughts here:
1) Once Edward of Lancaster was dead, was not George then the Lancastrian
"heir", at least according to those papers that were later used as evidence
against him? Then there's the possibility that Edward of Lancaster might
just know a few things about what George did while allied to Warwick.Both
good reasons to make sure Edward died.
[JLT] I'm not knowledgeable about this, but I think you may be onto
something there, Doug. Perhaps someone who knows more than I do (wouldn't
take much!) can confirm that you're right.
However, the reason I cited these sections dealing with Edward's and Henry
VI's deaths is to contrast Kendall's description in the body of the text
with the contradictory claims of his sources. My intention is to transcribe
more of the latter on this thread, but I haven't had a chance to do that
yet. My thought was that it seemed a bit odd for Kendall to conclude that
George was the "guilty party," when most of the sources Kendall cited didn't
directly implicate George.
Doug wrote:
2) Following on that, I can't see Margaret telling Edward IV anything one
way or another about what may have taken place between Warwick and Clarence
or anything else, for that matter. How much value could Edward IV place in
the words of someone who had fought so long and hard against him and, most
likely, held Edward responsible for her only son's death?
[JLT] Can you explain a bit more, Doug?
I suppose if Margaret were despondent, she might have been willing to talk.
On the other hand, perhaps Edward didn't feel that he needed anything from
her and would have questioned its reliability anyway, as you suggest.
I wrote:
"Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard."
Doug wrote:
"Esteem"? Frankly, I'd think "trust" might be a better substitute and much
more accurate!
[JLT] -
You say "ee-ther" and I say "eye-ther." (etc.) I would think the relative
position in a triumphal parade would be a sign of the favour of the monarch
- in addition in George's case, I would say, the "low esteem" was a result
of a lack of "trust." So there! We can have our cake and eat it, too!
<smile>
I wrote:
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death."
You wrote:
Well, Kendall does state that Richard "bore an order", which says to me that
Edward IV was responsible for the ultimate decision, whether with or without
the advice of his Council. Had Richard been responsible, there would have
been no need for such an order. The order was directed to the Constable of
the Tower and HE would have been responsible for carrying out its' contents,
not Richard.
I suppose that as we have two "Constables" involved, one of England, the
other of the Tower, the original charge against Richard killing Henry VI
came from the possible conflation of the two seperate positions. Not unlike
the later confusion about the illegitimacy of Edward (V) and Edward IV.
[JLT] I'm willing to wave the white flag here, especially after Marie's
post. It's just that the way Kendall relates it, Richard was at the least
"more involved" in the process than I had gathered from the discussion we
had on this point a few weeks ago. The problem is that, again, it seems that
Kendall is hypothesizing the whole scenario, which you can't tell till you
read the notes and the sequence of events that Marie lays out.
Seems odd, though, to think that Kendall may be incriminating Richard in the
matter of Henry VI's death to a greater extent than Thos. More did! "Thomas
More for the Ricardians!" Who'da thunk it?? <smile>
I wrote:
"At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?"
You wrote:
Henry VI WAS an anointed King and that alone may have been Richard's sole
reason. Another poster (Judy?) mentioned that Chertsey was becoming a sort
of Lancastrian pilgrimage site, so there'd be that as well.
Doug
(sorry about the delay in replying - holiday preps intervened)
[JLT] All may be right. I suppose that Richard may have been instructed to
do something like this as penance. He may have felt some penance was due
even if he only carried the order. (Or not, if Kendall's scenario is really
a flight of fancy.) It may have just been "the right thing to do."
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
I started this before your email was delivered to my inbox, Marie -
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
Johanne Tournier wrote:
//snip//
"Henry's death occurred almost upon Edward and Richard's return to London
after the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Edward the Prince of Wales had
been killed at Tewkesbury, according to Kendall by the newly-won-over George
of Clarence, perhaps in an excess of enthusiasm at his regained loyalty to
Edward. They captured Margaret of Anjou and brought her in, a broken woman.
So at this point Edward, Richard, and their forces had broken the back of
the Lancastrian forces. But Henry remained in the Tower as a possible focus
of rebellion."
Doug wrote:
Two thoughts here:
1) Once Edward of Lancaster was dead, was not George then the Lancastrian
"heir", at least according to those papers that were later used as evidence
against him? Then there's the possibility that Edward of Lancaster might
just know a few things about what George did while allied to Warwick.Both
good reasons to make sure Edward died.
[JLT] I'm not knowledgeable about this, but I think you may be onto
something there, Doug. Perhaps someone who knows more than I do (wouldn't
take much!) can confirm that you're right.
However, the reason I cited these sections dealing with Edward's and Henry
VI's deaths is to contrast Kendall's description in the body of the text
with the contradictory claims of his sources. My intention is to transcribe
more of the latter on this thread, but I haven't had a chance to do that
yet. My thought was that it seemed a bit odd for Kendall to conclude that
George was the "guilty party," when most of the sources Kendall cited didn't
directly implicate George.
Doug wrote:
2) Following on that, I can't see Margaret telling Edward IV anything one
way or another about what may have taken place between Warwick and Clarence
or anything else, for that matter. How much value could Edward IV place in
the words of someone who had fought so long and hard against him and, most
likely, held Edward responsible for her only son's death?
[JLT] Can you explain a bit more, Doug?
I suppose if Margaret were despondent, she might have been willing to talk.
On the other hand, perhaps Edward didn't feel that he needed anything from
her and would have questioned its reliability anyway, as you suggest.
I wrote:
"Kendall writes that the triumphal parade into London took place on May 21,
1471. Edward gave Richard, due to his valour and success, the place of
honour at the head of the parade, followed Lord Hastings and then King
Edward himself. Toward the rear came the Duke of Clarence - an indication of
the modest esteem in which George was held, especially when compared with
the accord given to his younger brother, the 18-year-old Richard."
Doug wrote:
"Esteem"? Frankly, I'd think "trust" might be a better substitute and much
more accurate!
[JLT] -
You say "ee-ther" and I say "eye-ther." (etc.) I would think the relative
position in a triumphal parade would be a sign of the favour of the monarch
- in addition in George's case, I would say, the "low esteem" was a result
of a lack of "trust." So there! We can have our cake and eat it, too!
<smile>
I wrote:
"That evening the King held a conference of his advisers, at the conclusion
of which he sent the Constable of England, his brother Richard, with a
delegation of noblemen to bear an order to Lord Dudley, Constable of the
Tower: that feeble candle, the life of Henry the Sixth, was to be snuffed
out. His death must bring to an end, it seemed, the convulsions of civil
strife which had so long shaken the realm. The next night Henry's body,
surrounded by torches and a guard of honour, was borne to St. Paul's where
it lay upon a bier, the face uncovered. Shortly after it was transported up
the Thames to be entombed in the Lady Chapel of Chertsey abbey." (p. 104)
From this recitation it appears most likely that Richard was rather more
than less personally responsible for the killing of King Henry, although in
his copious footnote to the passage, Kendall indicates that it is "unlikely"
that Richard was personally responsible for Henry's death, and it even
sounds like Kendall is not as certain as he describes it in the body of the
text that the Council had made the decision to put Henry to death."
You wrote:
Well, Kendall does state that Richard "bore an order", which says to me that
Edward IV was responsible for the ultimate decision, whether with or without
the advice of his Council. Had Richard been responsible, there would have
been no need for such an order. The order was directed to the Constable of
the Tower and HE would have been responsible for carrying out its' contents,
not Richard.
I suppose that as we have two "Constables" involved, one of England, the
other of the Tower, the original charge against Richard killing Henry VI
came from the possible conflation of the two seperate positions. Not unlike
the later confusion about the illegitimacy of Edward (V) and Edward IV.
[JLT] I'm willing to wave the white flag here, especially after Marie's
post. It's just that the way Kendall relates it, Richard was at the least
"more involved" in the process than I had gathered from the discussion we
had on this point a few weeks ago. The problem is that, again, it seems that
Kendall is hypothesizing the whole scenario, which you can't tell till you
read the notes and the sequence of events that Marie lays out.
Seems odd, though, to think that Kendall may be incriminating Richard in the
matter of Henry VI's death to a greater extent than Thos. More did! "Thomas
More for the Ricardians!" Who'da thunk it?? <smile>
I wrote:
"At the least, the timing is certainly "coincidental." And I find it
interesting that when he became king Richard considerably upgraded Henry's
tomb, moving him from Chertsey to Windsor. This suggests a possible parallel
with the decades-later behavior of Henry VII in enhancing the burial of
Richard, for whose death Henry VII had been responsible. So - might both be
seen as attempts to assuage guilty consciences?"
You wrote:
Henry VI WAS an anointed King and that alone may have been Richard's sole
reason. Another poster (Judy?) mentioned that Chertsey was becoming a sort
of Lancastrian pilgrimage site, so there'd be that as well.
Doug
(sorry about the delay in replying - holiday preps intervened)
[JLT] All may be right. I suppose that Richard may have been instructed to
do something like this as penance. He may have felt some penance was due
even if he only carried the order. (Or not, if Kendall's scenario is really
a flight of fancy.) It may have just been "the right thing to do."
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 22:31:49
ROFLMAO, Wednesday!
<chortle, snort>
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
It's because Richard didn't use emoticons. If he'd just told his clerk to
ink in some emoticons, all would be well, blast it.
:)
There.
~Wednesday
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and
generous to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I
read it. How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my
comprehension.
>
> Carol
>
<chortle, snort>
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
It's because Richard didn't use emoticons. If he'd just told his clerk to
ink in some emoticons, all would be well, blast it.
:)
There.
~Wednesday
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and
generous to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I
read it. How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my
comprehension.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 23:04:47
Yes, but the emblem is chosen in allusion to the name...
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:51
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Then I was right, by accident...
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Paul
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:48, david rayner wrote:
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.
>
> http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
>
>
>
> Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
> Quote:
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?'
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
>>
>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Stephen -
>>>
>>> Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:51
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Then I was right, by accident...
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Paul
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:48, david rayner wrote:
> Francis Lovel as "the dog" is a reference to the name Lovel as the anglicized version of the latin "Lupus" or Wolf.
>
> http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/persona.htm
>
>
>
> Incidentally, just found this ebook of Markham's Richard biography. This is particularly useful in that it includes full lists of Richard's peers, officers and appointments, details of the coronation, attainders and much more.
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> Hi, Wednesday -
>
> <irony on>Glad to know that Mr. Stubbe was actually a good patriot! Huzzah!
> <irony off>
>
> Coincidentally (or not), the other day I found the following on a Heraldry
> website -http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129
> <http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17129&start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c6
> 4d9450356c8624> &start=0&sid=8cd49b0bf8a55712c64d9450356c8624
>
> Quote:
>
> The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under the hog
>
> The Catte the Ratte And Louell our dogge Rulyth all Englande under a hogge.
> The whiche was ment that Catisby Ratclyffe And the Lord Louell Ruled the
> lande under the kynge.
> [1516 R. Fabyan New Chronicles of England & France viii. 219V]
>
> [Richard III executed] a poore gentleman called Collingborne [in 1484], for
> making a small rime of three of his% councellors,%lord Louell, sir Richard
> Ratcliffe%and sir William Catesbie. %The Cat, the Rat, and Louell our dog,
> Rule all England vnder an hog. Meaning by the hog, the%wild boare, which
> was the Kings cognisance [coat of arms].
> [1586 R. Holinshed Chronicles III. 746]
>
> His name%was Lovel.' What! the cat, the rat, and Lovel our dog? Was he
> descended from King Richard's favourite?'
> [1816 Scott Antiquary ii.]
>
> The cat, the rat and Lovell, the dog, Rule all England under the hog. %The
> hog was Richard the Third.
> [1973 A. Christie Postern of Fate i. ii.]
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/the-cat-the-rat-and-lovell-the-dog-rule-all-eng
> land-under-the-hog
>
> Is this true? Personally I doubt that he had the man executed; I think it's
> another example of either Lancastrian or Tudor propaganda. But - does anyone
> know the real story?
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
>
> I just finished reading an account wherein Elizabeth I had the right hand of
> John Stubbs/Stubbe chopped off in the market of Westminster in 1579 after he
> published a pamphlet voicing her subjects' apprehensions against her
> marrying the Catholic Duke of Anjou.
>
> Of course, "as soon as his right hand was cut off he put off his hat with
> the left, and cried aloud, 'God save the Queen!'" The people round him stood
> mute...."
>
> Yeesh. And they call Richard an archvillain?
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Closely followed by poor Margaret Pole....Clarence's daughter....Once Fat
> Harry got into his stride there was no stopping him....Dontcha just love the
> Tudors....Eileen
>>
>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Stephen -
>>>
>>> Someone named "Boleyn," I presume?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-22 23:27:01
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0517566656/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_remote_1?ie=UTF8&index=1&isremote=1
In this depiction, clearly the crest is a dog (talbot), rather than a wolf. But contemporary paintings may have been more wolf-like.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 18:18
Subject: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Carol responds:
Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
Carol
In this depiction, clearly the crest is a dog (talbot), rather than a wolf. But contemporary paintings may have been more wolf-like.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 18:18
Subject: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Carol responds:
Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
Carol
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-22 23:31:44
Sorry, you need to click on the image in the top left.
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 23:26
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0517566656/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_remote_1?ie=UTF8&index=1&isremote=1
In this depiction, clearly the crest is a dog (talbot), rather than a wolf. But contemporary paintings may have been more wolf-like.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 18:18
Subject: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Carol responds:
Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
Carol
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 23:26
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0517566656/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_remote_1?ie=UTF8&index=1&isremote=1
In this depiction, clearly the crest is a dog (talbot), rather than a wolf. But contemporary paintings may have been more wolf-like.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 18:18
Subject: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Carol responds:
Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-22 23:36:54
Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-22 23:50:54
Thanks for posting this, David. I did find a similar image in Peter Hammond's *Richard III and the Bosworth Campaign* - where it says it's the Garter stall plate of Francis, Viscount Lovell. I think it's at Windsor, tho it does not say in Hammond's book.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 22 Nov 2012 23:31:45 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Sorry, you need to click on the image in the top left.
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 23:26
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0517566656/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_remote_1?ie=UTF8&index=1&isremote=1
In this depiction, clearly the crest is a dog (talbot), rather than a wolf. But contemporary paintings may have been more wolf-like.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 18:18
Subject: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Carol responds:
Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
Carol
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: david rayner
Sent: 22 Nov 2012 23:31:45 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Sorry, you need to click on the image in the top left.
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 23:26
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0517566656/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_remote_1?ie=UTF8&index=1&isremote=1
In this depiction, clearly the crest is a dog (talbot), rather than a wolf. But contemporary paintings may have been more wolf-like.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 18:18
Subject: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
Carol responds:
Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
Carol
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-23 00:26:47
>
> Seems odd, though, to think that Kendall may be incriminating Richard in the
> matter of Henry VI's death to a greater extent than Thos. More did! "Thomas
> More for the Ricardians!" Who'da thunk it?? <smile>
I think Kendall was following Gairdner's reasoning. Actually, More didn't incriminate Richard less at all. He reasoned that, since King Edward clearly wouldn't have asked his brother to carry out such a deed himself, then Richard must have murdered Henry on his own initiative. But then you need a motive, don't you, so I suppose this is how we get to the Shakespearean depiction of Richard wading through blood to the throne.
Oh, and this was only one of More's versions of the death of Henry VI anyway.
Marie
> Seems odd, though, to think that Kendall may be incriminating Richard in the
> matter of Henry VI's death to a greater extent than Thos. More did! "Thomas
> More for the Ricardians!" Who'da thunk it?? <smile>
I think Kendall was following Gairdner's reasoning. Actually, More didn't incriminate Richard less at all. He reasoned that, since King Edward clearly wouldn't have asked his brother to carry out such a deed himself, then Richard must have murdered Henry on his own initiative. But then you need a motive, don't you, so I suppose this is how we get to the Shakespearean depiction of Richard wading through blood to the throne.
Oh, and this was only one of More's versions of the death of Henry VI anyway.
Marie
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-23 10:04:44
In Standards, Badges & Livery Colours of the WOTR by Pat McGill and Jonathan Jones there is a full colour picture of Lovel's standard.
It is described thus:
St George in the hoist. Field: azure [blue] over Or [gold/yellow] a bordure company azure and Or.
Badges: A hound (dog) argent [silver/white] crowned about the neck and chained Or. Square padlocks Or. Motto: Tempus Omnia Monstrat.
His garter stall at Windsor shows the hound argent as his crest and the padlocks on the mantling of the crest.
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
It is described thus:
St George in the hoist. Field: azure [blue] over Or [gold/yellow] a bordure company azure and Or.
Badges: A hound (dog) argent [silver/white] crowned about the neck and chained Or. Square padlocks Or. Motto: Tempus Omnia Monstrat.
His garter stall at Windsor shows the hound argent as his crest and the padlocks on the mantling of the crest.
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 10:09:20
There is a memoir from Sanson, the executioner who first had to use the guillotine and found it liberating, until it became a 30 times a day job!
In French of course.
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 21:36, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I don't know whether to be glad or disappointed none of the professional executioners left behind their highly detailed memoirs. They could have called them, "I Miss the Screamin'. Vols. I-III'".
>
> ~Wednesday
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>
>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
In French of course.
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 21:36, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I don't know whether to be glad or disappointed none of the professional executioners left behind their highly detailed memoirs. They could have called them, "I Miss the Screamin'. Vols. I-III'".
>
> ~Wednesday
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>
>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 10:10:28
Thank you Paul.Have no fear like you I am robust about these things. And I have to admit that when I started this PG had not announced she was going in that direction. So Anne is on the shelf whilst I work on another R project and will be dusted down in due course. They did like my take on her, though. She's not PG's whiner.
What I dislike is being asked to turn people who lived into villains without justification to make money. I find it sordid. But then perhaps that's why I'm on this site? Hilary
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 15:28
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
NEVER EVER EVER GIVE UP PAUL....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I sympathise with you Hilary. A director who recently read my script told me she "missed the sardonic sense of humour Richard has in Shakespeare".
> Keep fighting though! Remember how many publishers turned down Harry Potter before one saw the potential!
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:45, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Hello Karen,
> > I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> > It did not go down well.
> > I was told to:
> > take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> > devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> > make George the Antichrist
> > make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> > make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> > BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> > Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> > Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> > I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> > question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> > I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> > anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> > none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> > were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> > thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> > all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> > Richard either.
> >
> > I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> > some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen said:
> > Judith
> >
> > My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> > have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> > would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> > though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> > and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> > of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> > such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> > can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> > points of view.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> > groups out there, and
> > as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> > frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
What I dislike is being asked to turn people who lived into villains without justification to make money. I find it sordid. But then perhaps that's why I'm on this site? Hilary
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 15:28
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
NEVER EVER EVER GIVE UP PAUL....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I sympathise with you Hilary. A director who recently read my script told me she "missed the sardonic sense of humour Richard has in Shakespeare".
> Keep fighting though! Remember how many publishers turned down Harry Potter before one saw the potential!
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 13:45, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Hello Karen,
> > I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> > It did not go down well.
> > I was told to:
> > take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> > devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> > make George the Antichrist
> > make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> > make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> > BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> > Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> > Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> > I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> > question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> > I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> > anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> > none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> > were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> > thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> > all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> > Richard either.
> >
> > I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> > some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen said:
> > Judith
> >
> > My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> > have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> > would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> > though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> > and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> > of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> > such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> > can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> > points of view.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> > groups out there, and
> > as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> > frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 10:11:55
With you except in your choice of viewing.
I was always disappointed not seeing Errol Flynn beheaded in Elizabeth and Essex!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 23:36, david rayner wrote:
> Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
>
>
>
> Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
> Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
>> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
>>>
>>>
>>> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
>>> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
>>> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
>>> imho.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Email - jltournier60@...
>>>
>>> or jltournier@...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "With God, all things are possible."
>>>
>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
>>> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
>>> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
>>> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
>>> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>> To:
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
>>> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
>>> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
>>> everything have to be so graphic....?
>>>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
>>> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
>>> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
>>> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
>>> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
>>> sandwiches.....:0)
>>>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
>>> the 15th century....:0/
>>>>> Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
>>> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
>>> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
>>> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
>>> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
>>> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
I was always disappointed not seeing Errol Flynn beheaded in Elizabeth and Essex!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 23:36, david rayner wrote:
> Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
>
>
>
> Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
> Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
>> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
>>>
>>>
>>> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
>>> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
>>> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
>>> imho.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Email - jltournier60@...
>>>
>>> or jltournier@...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "With God, all things are possible."
>>>
>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
>>> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
>>> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
>>> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
>>> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>> To:
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
>>> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
>>> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
>>> everything have to be so graphic....?
>>>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
>>> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
>>> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
>>> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
>>> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
>>> sandwiches.....:0)
>>>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
>>> the 15th century....:0/
>>>>> Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
>>> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
>>> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
>>> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
>>> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
>>> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 10:24:03
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 10:31:53
It was probably Hicks!!!??? I can't remember who it was without wading through my books - or it could have been on the web. There are some nasty Lancastrians out there (joke!) Hilary
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 22:08
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It's because Richard didn't use emoticons. If he'd just told his clerk to ink in some emoticons, all would be well, blast it.
:)
There.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and generous to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I read it. How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my comprehension.
>
> Carol
>
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 22:08
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It's because Richard didn't use emoticons. If he'd just told his clerk to ink in some emoticons, all would be well, blast it.
:)
There.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Or bewildered by Lynom's attraction to Mistress Shore but kind and generous to his "marvelously blinded and abused" solicitor, which is how I read it. How it can be interpreted as harsh or hostile is beyond my comprehension.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 10:36:49
One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 21:26
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It seems like Richard had that dry, ironic sense of humor that can be so easily mistaken for sarcasm or nastiness by those who didn't know him -- or those who were deadly serious about every blessed thing around them.
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 21:26
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It seems like Richard had that dry, ironic sense of humor that can be so easily mistaken for sarcasm or nastiness by those who didn't know him -- or those who were deadly serious about every blessed thing around them.
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 11:03:49
Liz. Yes, I have a friend who works for an agent who was intially interested in the concept. And I consulted an author's advice consultancy as well to doublecheck. All are adamant - 100,000 words tops, not even 105. It's the cost of paper and the risk. If you are an established author like PG or the much better Mantel you can write as much as you like. They say the day of the 'doorstop' novel is long over. People want action, action, action (a la Da Vinci Code). So Penman, Jarman, Edwards and a few others wouldn't have stood a chance. I'm afraid it's money which now rules since the Recession - a bit like the discussion on the quality of TV. I'm in the UK; agents here are only interested in UK sales - they say the US is a 'closed world'. In some ways they're right of course. Obviously the wider group of people you appeal to the more money you make. No doubt Will Shakespeare understood that. Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:32
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
A word limit? Hilary are you in the UK or the US? i've never heard anything so daft - well apart from the suggestions about "refining" your plot. Did these suggestions come from an agent?
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:45
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hello Karen,
I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
It did not go down well.
I was told to:
take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
make George the Antichrist
make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:32
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
A word limit? Hilary are you in the UK or the US? i've never heard anything so daft - well apart from the suggestions about "refining" your plot. Did these suggestions come from an agent?
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:45
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hello Karen,
I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
It did not go down well.
I was told to:
take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
make George the Antichrist
make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Digital publishing? etc. (was RE: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richa
2012-11-23 11:16:20
Hi, Hilary
I'm loving your comments!
Good luck to you, Judy, Paul and everyone else with a Ricardian project in the works stay faithful!
I think it's a good idea to go the online route. In fact, it makes one wonder if that isn't something that the RIII Society might even sponsor. I would think publishing online would be a lot simpler than getting print books published.
And btw, although the print and pictures on my kindle (which is an old-style kindle keyboard) are second-rate, on my Android phone and on my PC the digital documents and pictures are clearer and brighter than they are on a print book. Judy's stained-glass style illustrations would be particularly lovely when viewed on a PC, imho. <smile>
Also btw, as I was going through Peter Hammond's book *RIII and the Bosworth Campaign,* looking for Francis Lovell's badge, I found just before it a copy (by Geoffrey Wheeler) of a painting on glass of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, who would have been one of Richard's oldest friends; Norfolk hosted Richard on the latter's first trip into East Anglia as a youth. Judging from the other works of art of Geoffrey Wheeler, they are very faithful to the originals, and I love the look of Howard, which is very individualized and very attractive. You can easily see why Richard would have been drawn to him.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:37 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@... <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 21:26
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It seems like Richard had that dry, ironic sense of humor that can be so easily mistaken for sarcasm or nastiness by those who didn't know him -- or those who were deadly serious about every blessed thing around them.
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
I'm loving your comments!
Good luck to you, Judy, Paul and everyone else with a Ricardian project in the works stay faithful!
I think it's a good idea to go the online route. In fact, it makes one wonder if that isn't something that the RIII Society might even sponsor. I would think publishing online would be a lot simpler than getting print books published.
And btw, although the print and pictures on my kindle (which is an old-style kindle keyboard) are second-rate, on my Android phone and on my PC the digital documents and pictures are clearer and brighter than they are on a print book. Judy's stained-glass style illustrations would be particularly lovely when viewed on a PC, imho. <smile>
Also btw, as I was going through Peter Hammond's book *RIII and the Bosworth Campaign,* looking for Francis Lovell's badge, I found just before it a copy (by Geoffrey Wheeler) of a painting on glass of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, who would have been one of Richard's oldest friends; Norfolk hosted Richard on the latter's first trip into East Anglia as a youth. Judging from the other works of art of Geoffrey Wheeler, they are very faithful to the originals, and I love the look of Howard, which is very individualized and very attractive. You can easily see why Richard would have been drawn to him.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:37 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@... <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 21:26
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It seems like Richard had that dry, ironic sense of humor that can be so easily mistaken for sarcasm or nastiness by those who didn't know him -- or those who were deadly serious about every blessed thing around them.
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-23 12:18:08
Spent last 20 minutes trying to sign into Yahoo site so I can post a picture I have of the standard. They keep telling me I'm not a member, but as I get the posts every day I clearly have forgotten my original Yahoo ID.
Will keep trying. It is worth the wait I promise!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Will keep trying. It is worth the wait I promise!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-23 12:34:27
Hi, Paul -
I can log into Yahoo. Send me the standard and I will post it for you.
I hate it when I forget user names and/or passwords!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
power?
Spent last 20 minutes trying to sign into Yahoo site so I can post a picture
I have of the standard. They keep telling me I'm not a member, but as I get
the posts every day I clearly have forgotten my original Yahoo ID.
Will keep trying. It is worth the wait I promise!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to
agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet
to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks
doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict
a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly
imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a
wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and
Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort,
but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like
padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
I can log into Yahoo. Send me the standard and I will post it for you.
I hate it when I forget user names and/or passwords!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
power?
Spent last 20 minutes trying to sign into Yahoo site so I can post a picture
I have of the standard. They keep telling me I'm not a member, but as I get
the posts every day I clearly have forgotten my original Yahoo ID.
Will keep trying. It is worth the wait I promise!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to
agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet
to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks
doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict
a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly
imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a
wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and
Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort,
but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like
padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 12:54:37
Dear David
You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Digital publishing? etc. (was RE: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did R
2012-11-23 13:06:43
Thanks Johanne for your comments and support. Perhaps I shall dust her down?
I love Geoffrey Wheeler's work too - so much 'truer' than some TV production costumes etc!!! How lucky we are having people like him doing such fine work. Hilary
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 11:16
Subject: Digital publishing? etc. (was RE: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?))
Hi, Hilary
I'm loving your comments!
Good luck to you, Judy, Paul and everyone else with a Ricardian project in the works stay faithful!
I think it's a good idea to go the online route. In fact, it makes one wonder if that isn't something that the RIII Society might even sponsor. I would think publishing online would be a lot simpler than getting print books published.
And btw, although the print and pictures on my kindle (which is an old-style kindle keyboard) are second-rate, on my Android phone and on my PC the digital documents and pictures are clearer and brighter than they are on a print book. Judy's stained-glass style illustrations would be particularly lovely when viewed on a PC, imho. <smile>
Also btw, as I was going through Peter Hammond's book *RIII and the Bosworth Campaign,* looking for Francis Lovell's badge, I found just before it a copy (by Geoffrey Wheeler) of a painting on glass of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, who would have been one of Richard's oldest friends; Norfolk hosted Richard on the latter's first trip into East Anglia as a youth. Judging from the other works of art of Geoffrey Wheeler, they are very faithful to the originals, and I love the look of Howard, which is very individualized and very attractive. You can easily see why Richard would have been drawn to him.
Loyaulte me lie,
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 Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:37 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> >
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 21:26
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It seems like Richard had that dry, ironic sense of humor that can be so easily mistaken for sarcasm or nastiness by those who didn't know him -- or those who were deadly serious about every blessed thing around them.
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
I love Geoffrey Wheeler's work too - so much 'truer' than some TV production costumes etc!!! How lucky we are having people like him doing such fine work. Hilary
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 11:16
Subject: Digital publishing? etc. (was RE: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?))
Hi, Hilary
I'm loving your comments!
Good luck to you, Judy, Paul and everyone else with a Ricardian project in the works stay faithful!
I think it's a good idea to go the online route. In fact, it makes one wonder if that isn't something that the RIII Society might even sponsor. I would think publishing online would be a lot simpler than getting print books published.
And btw, although the print and pictures on my kindle (which is an old-style kindle keyboard) are second-rate, on my Android phone and on my PC the digital documents and pictures are clearer and brighter than they are on a print book. Judy's stained-glass style illustrations would be particularly lovely when viewed on a PC, imho. <smile>
Also btw, as I was going through Peter Hammond's book *RIII and the Bosworth Campaign,* looking for Francis Lovell's badge, I found just before it a copy (by Geoffrey Wheeler) of a painting on glass of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, who would have been one of Richard's oldest friends; Norfolk hosted Richard on the latter's first trip into East Anglia as a youth. Judging from the other works of art of Geoffrey Wheeler, they are very faithful to the originals, and I love the look of Howard, which is very individualized and very attractive. You can easily see why Richard would have been drawn to him.
Loyaulte me lie,
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 Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:37 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> >
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 21:26
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It seems like Richard had that dry, ironic sense of humor that can be so easily mistaken for sarcasm or nastiness by those who didn't know him -- or those who were deadly serious about every blessed thing around them.
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
Re: Digital publishing? etc. (was RE: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did R
2012-11-23 13:19:33
Hi, Hilary
Yes, by all means! For one thing, I think word of mouth among Ricardians is quite effective, and you would have that. And there will be opportunity and interest growing in Richard as word spreads about the discovery in Leicester and its significance.
So go for it! That's my advice to all Ricardians who have a draft of a book or script in their desks!
BTW, I might note I'm not 100% sure that the image of the Duke of Norfolk is a copy by Geoffrey Wheeler. The caption is a bit ambiguous. It's possible that it's actually an image of the original which is in the collection of Geoffrey Wheeler. Either way the image is lovely, for one thing, and yes, you are absolutely right about Wheeler's great talent. What a boon he is to Ricardians! I think we all particularly love the images which in a way show Ricardian Britain as it might have been in an ideal world.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Digital publishing? etc. (was RE: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?))
Thanks Johanne for your comments and support. Perhaps I shall dust her down?
I love Geoffrey Wheeler's work too - so much 'truer' than some TV production costumes etc!!! How lucky we are having people like him doing such fine work. Hilary
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 11:16
Subject: Digital publishing? etc. (was RE: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?))
Hi, Hilary
I'm loving your comments!
Good luck to you, Judy, Paul and everyone else with a Ricardian project in the works stay faithful!
I think it's a good idea to go the online route. In fact, it makes one wonder if that isn't something that the RIII Society might even sponsor. I would think publishing online would be a lot simpler than getting print books published.
And btw, although the print and pictures on my kindle (which is an old-style kindle keyboard) are second-rate, on my Android phone and on my PC the digital documents and pictures are clearer and brighter than they are on a print book. Judy's stained-glass style illustrations would be particularly lovely when viewed on a PC, imho. <smile>
Also btw, as I was going through Peter Hammond's book *RIII and the Bosworth Campaign,* looking for Francis Lovell's badge, I found just before it a copy (by Geoffrey Wheeler) of a painting on glass of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, who would have been one of Richard's oldest friends; Norfolk hosted Richard on the latter's first trip into East Anglia as a youth. Judging from the other works of art of Geoffrey Wheeler, they are very faithful to the originals, and I love the look of Howard, which is very individualized and very attractive. You can easily see why Richard would have been drawn to him.
Loyaulte me lie,
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 Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:37 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com%20%3cmailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> >
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 21:26
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It seems like Richard had that dry, ironic sense of humor that can be so easily mistaken for sarcasm or nastiness by those who didn't know him -- or those who were deadly serious about every blessed thing around them.
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
Yes, by all means! For one thing, I think word of mouth among Ricardians is quite effective, and you would have that. And there will be opportunity and interest growing in Richard as word spreads about the discovery in Leicester and its significance.
So go for it! That's my advice to all Ricardians who have a draft of a book or script in their desks!
BTW, I might note I'm not 100% sure that the image of the Duke of Norfolk is a copy by Geoffrey Wheeler. The caption is a bit ambiguous. It's possible that it's actually an image of the original which is in the collection of Geoffrey Wheeler. Either way the image is lovely, for one thing, and yes, you are absolutely right about Wheeler's great talent. What a boon he is to Ricardians! I think we all particularly love the images which in a way show Ricardian Britain as it might have been in an ideal world.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Digital publishing? etc. (was RE: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?))
Thanks Johanne for your comments and support. Perhaps I shall dust her down?
I love Geoffrey Wheeler's work too - so much 'truer' than some TV production costumes etc!!! How lucky we are having people like him doing such fine work. Hilary
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 11:16
Subject: Digital publishing? etc. (was RE: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?))
Hi, Hilary
I'm loving your comments!
Good luck to you, Judy, Paul and everyone else with a Ricardian project in the works stay faithful!
I think it's a good idea to go the online route. In fact, it makes one wonder if that isn't something that the RIII Society might even sponsor. I would think publishing online would be a lot simpler than getting print books published.
And btw, although the print and pictures on my kindle (which is an old-style kindle keyboard) are second-rate, on my Android phone and on my PC the digital documents and pictures are clearer and brighter than they are on a print book. Judy's stained-glass style illustrations would be particularly lovely when viewed on a PC, imho. <smile>
Also btw, as I was going through Peter Hammond's book *RIII and the Bosworth Campaign,* looking for Francis Lovell's badge, I found just before it a copy (by Geoffrey Wheeler) of a painting on glass of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, who would have been one of Richard's oldest friends; Norfolk hosted Richard on the latter's first trip into East Anglia as a youth. Judging from the other works of art of Geoffrey Wheeler, they are very faithful to the originals, and I love the look of Howard, which is very individualized and very attractive. You can easily see why Richard would have been drawn to him.
Loyaulte me lie,
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 Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:37 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com%20%3cmailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> >
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 21:26
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It seems like Richard had that dry, ironic sense of humor that can be so easily mistaken for sarcasm or nastiness by those who didn't know him -- or those who were deadly serious about every blessed thing around them.
Perhaps, sometimes, Richard's sense of humor was the only thing keeping him from knocking even more heads together. He certainly seems to have escaped the trait of so many he confronted in battle or across the negotiation table, who could only be happy if someone else was miserable, or if someone else had less than they did.
It also occurred to me that Dickon may have been influenced by the northern village attitude of "I'll help you because I'll soon be needing your help". Not to mention a "say what you mean and do as you say you'll do," code of honor. Whereas some men he dealt with in other counties/countries were of the, "what's in it for me?" and the "all for one and more for me" mentality. So he was dealing constantly with people who were miles apart from him philosophically.
He seems so trusting and almost naive in some instances. But hindsight is 50/50 and all he could do was give the nobles what he thought they required to remain loyal to him. It's not his fault they accepted subsequent offers or trimmed.
The problem with being a good guy is that it leaves the bad guy free to change, bend or break the rules you're required to follow. Perhaps he also wore his honor on his sleeve by actually applying his motto to his life. If someone knew who he was loyal to, they knew 99% of how he'd react in any situation, which made it that much easier to know how to betray him.
~Wednesday
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Anger, yes - Hastings, Buckingham (perhaps even Rivers - he had shared exile with him in Bruges). And I agree with the kind streak and a sense of humour; it's amazing how many interpret the Thomas Lynom/Jane (Elizabeth )Shore letter as hostile, when it can be taken very much as tongue in cheek. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2012, 18:42
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
> Funnily enough I have been trying to find a reasonably priced secondhand copy of The Deceivers in the last few days. They are quite pricey...I have found one for £20 plus postage so will be purchasing that very soon if its still around. Yes...have got Dr Ashdown's Eleanor....and I agree this is an important book....Poor Eleanor...and it was not until I read this book I realised that Eleanor's lineage was so illustrious with family links to Warwick. I find it hard to believe Warwick did not know of the pre-contract and there were rumours circulating at the time about Edward having abused a relation of Warwick's. If Warwick did know therein hangs a tale as to why he appears to have kept quiet about it. When you understand all this you realise how ludicrous and misleading More's history was with Elizabeth Lucy, a known courtesan being named as the lady entwined with Edward.
> All fascinating stuff.....
> No I don't see Richard as a saint...I see him as extremely strong, resolute with a very strong loyalty which when he came across disloyalty capable of great anger. I also think he had a kind streak too...especially towards woman. As has been said on here many times...Richard given a chance would have been one of our best monarchs....Eileen
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 14:16:29
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 14:52:48
Not Malabonce?
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
There is a memoir from Sanson, the executioner who first had to use the guillotine and found it liberating, until it became a 30 times a day job!
In French of course.
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 21:36, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I don't know whether to be glad or disappointed none of the professional executioners left behind their highly detailed memoirs. They could have called them, "I Miss the Screamin'. Vols. I-III'".
>
> ~Wednesday
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>
>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
There is a memoir from Sanson, the executioner who first had to use the guillotine and found it liberating, until it became a 30 times a day job!
In French of course.
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 21:36, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I don't know whether to be glad or disappointed none of the professional executioners left behind their highly detailed memoirs. They could have called them, "I Miss the Screamin'. Vols. I-III'".
>
> ~Wednesday
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed alive far longer than they wished to!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>
>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-23 16:11:37
Marie, what's the other version?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 7:26 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Seems odd, though, to think that Kendall may be incriminating Richard in the
> > matter of Henry VI's death to a greater extent than Thos. More did! "Thomas
> > More for the Ricardians!" Who'da thunk it?? <smile>
>
> I think Kendall was following Gairdner's reasoning. Actually, More didn't incriminate Richard less at all. He reasoned that, since King Edward clearly wouldn't have asked his brother to carry out such a deed himself, then Richard must have murdered Henry on his own initiative. But then you need a motive, don't you, so I suppose this is how we get to the Shakespearean depiction of Richard wading through blood to the throne.
> Oh, and this was only one of More's versions of the death of Henry VI anyway.
> Marie
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 7:26 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Seems odd, though, to think that Kendall may be incriminating Richard in the
> > matter of Henry VI's death to a greater extent than Thos. More did! "Thomas
> > More for the Ricardians!" Who'da thunk it?? <smile>
>
> I think Kendall was following Gairdner's reasoning. Actually, More didn't incriminate Richard less at all. He reasoned that, since King Edward clearly wouldn't have asked his brother to carry out such a deed himself, then Richard must have murdered Henry on his own initiative. But then you need a motive, don't you, so I suppose this is how we get to the Shakespearean depiction of Richard wading through blood to the throne.
> Oh, and this was only one of More's versions of the death of Henry VI anyway.
> Marie
>
>
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-23 16:11:47
Johanne Tournier wrote:
//snip//
"However, the reason I cited these sections dealing with Edward's and Henry
VI's deaths is to contrast Kendall's description in the body of the text
with the contradictory claims of his sources. My intention is to transcribe
more of the latter on this thread, but I haven't had a chance to do that
yet. My thought was that it seemed a bit odd for Kendall to conclude that
George was the "guilty party," when most of the sources Kendall cited didn't
directly implicate George."
I haven't a copy of Kendall, but it's now on the top of my "acquire" list!
"Can you explain a bit more, Doug?
I suppose if Margaret were despondent, she might have been willing to talk.
On the other hand, perhaps Edward didn't feel that he needed anything from
her and would have questioned its reliability anyway, as you suggest."
Mostly a matter of reliability. There a many examples throughout history of
innocent people being suspected of crimes based solely on someone wanting to
cause trouble for someone else (not the innocent person). Say Margaret said
something about someone who supported Edward, even if Edward doesn't really
believe it, and considering the political atmosphere during the WoTR, it
doesn't take much imagination to believe that an accusation by Margaret
would affect how Edward viewed the person she had, falsely, accused.
Does that make sense?
//snip//
Doug
//snip//
"However, the reason I cited these sections dealing with Edward's and Henry
VI's deaths is to contrast Kendall's description in the body of the text
with the contradictory claims of his sources. My intention is to transcribe
more of the latter on this thread, but I haven't had a chance to do that
yet. My thought was that it seemed a bit odd for Kendall to conclude that
George was the "guilty party," when most of the sources Kendall cited didn't
directly implicate George."
I haven't a copy of Kendall, but it's now on the top of my "acquire" list!
"Can you explain a bit more, Doug?
I suppose if Margaret were despondent, she might have been willing to talk.
On the other hand, perhaps Edward didn't feel that he needed anything from
her and would have questioned its reliability anyway, as you suggest."
Mostly a matter of reliability. There a many examples throughout history of
innocent people being suspected of crimes based solely on someone wanting to
cause trouble for someone else (not the innocent person). Say Margaret said
something about someone who supported Edward, even if Edward doesn't really
believe it, and considering the political atmosphere during the WoTR, it
doesn't take much imagination to believe that an accusation by Margaret
would affect how Edward viewed the person she had, falsely, accused.
Does that make sense?
//snip//
Doug
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 16:25:05
Hilary Jones wrote:
"Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long
time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my
time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used
that agile mind to invent parish registers!
//snip//
Welcome to the board!
And thanks for that word "poddling", I've never heard it before but it may
very well describe what we're doing here, as well.
Oh, and trust Dr. Morton to get something wrong again!
Doug
"Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long
time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my
time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used
that agile mind to invent parish registers!
//snip//
Welcome to the board!
And thanks for that word "poddling", I've never heard it before but it may
very well describe what we're doing here, as well.
Oh, and trust Dr. Morton to get something wrong again!
Doug
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 16:54:24
wednesday_mc wrote:
"It's because Richard didn't use emoticons. If he'd just told his clerk to
ink in some emoticons, all would be well, blast it."
For that you get my first use ever of "LOL"!
Doug
"It's because Richard didn't use emoticons. If he'd just told his clerk to
ink in some emoticons, all would be well, blast it."
For that you get my first use ever of "LOL"!
Doug
Re: Did Richard kill Henry VI?
2012-11-23 19:22:22
According to an ar5ticle by the late lamented Bill White in a past Ricardian, More has several slightly different versions in his various texts. These are the two he quoted:
(1) "Poor King Henry the Sixth… was now in the Tower of London, spoiled of his life, and all worldly felicity, by Richard Duke of Gloucester (as the constant fame ran) which, to the intent that King Edward his brother should be clear out of all secret suspicion of sudden invasion, murdered the said king with a dagger."
(2) "He slew with his own hands King Henry the Sixth being prisoner in the Tower of London, as men constantly say, and that without commandment or knowledge of the King, which would undoubtedly, if he had intended that thing, have appointed that butcherly office to some other than his own born brother."
Marie
--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, what's the other version?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 7:26 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Seems odd, though, to think that Kendall may be incriminating Richard in the
> > > matter of Henry VI's death to a greater extent than Thos. More did! "Thomas
> > > More for the Ricardians!" Who'da thunk it?? <smile>
> >
> > I think Kendall was following Gairdner's reasoning. Actually, More didn't incriminate Richard less at all. He reasoned that, since King Edward clearly wouldn't have asked his brother to carry out such a deed himself, then Richard must have murdered Henry on his own initiative. But then you need a motive, don't you, so I suppose this is how we get to the Shakespearean depiction of Richard wading through blood to the throne.
> > Oh, and this was only one of More's versions of the death of Henry VI anyway.
> > Marie
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
(1) "Poor King Henry the Sixth… was now in the Tower of London, spoiled of his life, and all worldly felicity, by Richard Duke of Gloucester (as the constant fame ran) which, to the intent that King Edward his brother should be clear out of all secret suspicion of sudden invasion, murdered the said king with a dagger."
(2) "He slew with his own hands King Henry the Sixth being prisoner in the Tower of London, as men constantly say, and that without commandment or knowledge of the King, which would undoubtedly, if he had intended that thing, have appointed that butcherly office to some other than his own born brother."
Marie
--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, what's the other version?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 7:26 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Seems odd, though, to think that Kendall may be incriminating Richard in the
> > > matter of Henry VI's death to a greater extent than Thos. More did! "Thomas
> > > More for the Ricardians!" Who'da thunk it?? <smile>
> >
> > I think Kendall was following Gairdner's reasoning. Actually, More didn't incriminate Richard less at all. He reasoned that, since King Edward clearly wouldn't have asked his brother to carry out such a deed himself, then Richard must have murdered Henry on his own initiative. But then you need a motive, don't you, so I suppose this is how we get to the Shakespearean depiction of Richard wading through blood to the throne.
> > Oh, and this was only one of More's versions of the death of Henry VI anyway.
> > Marie
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 19:35:47
It's unbelievable but it makes me wonder how on earth people like PG ever got published in the first place since she's not even a particularly good writer (I am being kind I think).
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 11:03
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz. Yes, I have a friend who works for an agent who was intially interested in the concept. And I consulted an author's advice consultancy as well to doublecheck. All are adamant - 100,000 words tops, not even 105. It's the cost of paper and the risk. If you are an established author like PG or the much better Mantel you can write as much as you like. They say the day of the 'doorstop' novel is long over. People want action, action, action (a la Da Vinci Code). So Penman, Jarman, Edwards and a few others wouldn't have stood a chance. I'm afraid it's money which now rules since the Recession - a bit like the discussion on the quality of TV. I'm in the UK; agents here are only interested in UK sales - they say the US is a 'closed world'. In some ways they're right of course. Obviously the wider group of people you appeal to the more money you make. No doubt Will Shakespeare understood that. Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:32
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
A word limit? Hilary are you in the UK or the US? i've never heard anything so daft - well apart from the suggestions about "refining" your plot. Did these suggestions come from an agent?
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:45
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hello Karen,
I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
It did not go down well.
I was told to:
take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
make George the Antichrist
make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 11:03
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz. Yes, I have a friend who works for an agent who was intially interested in the concept. And I consulted an author's advice consultancy as well to doublecheck. All are adamant - 100,000 words tops, not even 105. It's the cost of paper and the risk. If you are an established author like PG or the much better Mantel you can write as much as you like. They say the day of the 'doorstop' novel is long over. People want action, action, action (a la Da Vinci Code). So Penman, Jarman, Edwards and a few others wouldn't have stood a chance. I'm afraid it's money which now rules since the Recession - a bit like the discussion on the quality of TV. I'm in the UK; agents here are only interested in UK sales - they say the US is a 'closed world'. In some ways they're right of course. Obviously the wider group of people you appeal to the more money you make. No doubt Will Shakespeare understood that. Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:32
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
A word limit? Hilary are you in the UK or the US? i've never heard anything so daft - well apart from the suggestions about "refining" your plot. Did these suggestions come from an agent?
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:45
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hello Karen,
I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
It did not go down well.
I was told to:
take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
make George the Antichrist
make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
Karen
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Karen,
I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
Richard either.
I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
Liz
Karen said:
Judith
My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
points of view.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
groups out there, and
as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
Judy
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 21:01:14
Just some of my dry northern humour. Not that I didn't mean it.
Tower Of London is probably worth watching for Boris Karloff's faithful Mort; surely the inspiration for A Game of Throne's Mord. Also the chamber maids going about their daily "doodies". Oh, and young Richard of Shrewsbury. No wonder someone smothered him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdl2WqCulg
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Dear David
You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Tower Of London is probably worth watching for Boris Karloff's faithful Mort; surely the inspiration for A Game of Throne's Mord. Also the chamber maids going about their daily "doodies". Oh, and young Richard of Shrewsbury. No wonder someone smothered him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdl2WqCulg
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Dear David
You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-23 21:16:09
Just to add to the confusion, though I'm sure it didn't often confuse the men fighting, except at Barnet in the fog of course, somebody mentioned a Talbot on Lovel's banner, but in fact the Talbot was naturally the emblem of John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, and though similar, Lovel's was a less particular breed of dog.
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort, but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-23 21:40:48
Hi, Paul -
That was me. I am sure I read in one or two places that Lovell had a talbot
on his COA or the achievement - I noticed it because he wasn't a "Talbot,"
and I was surprised. However, I haven't been able to find where I read that
either.
I guess that's not the point - the point is that in the bit of doggerel, the
nicknames for Catesby and Ratcliffe were taken from their names, while it
*appears* that Lovell's came from the dog on his COA. I think.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:16 PM
To:
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
power?
Just to add to the confusion, though I'm sure it didn't often confuse the
men fighting, except at Barnet in the fog of course, somebody mentioned a
Talbot on Lovel's banner, but in fact the Talbot was naturally the emblem of
John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, and though similar, Lovel's was a less
particular breed of dog.
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to
agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet
to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks
doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict
a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly
imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a
wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and
Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort,
but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like
padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
That was me. I am sure I read in one or two places that Lovell had a talbot
on his COA or the achievement - I noticed it because he wasn't a "Talbot,"
and I was surprised. However, I haven't been able to find where I read that
either.
I guess that's not the point - the point is that in the bit of doggerel, the
nicknames for Catesby and Ratcliffe were taken from their names, while it
*appears* that Lovell's came from the dog on his COA. I think.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:16 PM
To:
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
power?
Just to add to the confusion, though I'm sure it didn't often confuse the
men fighting, except at Barnet in the fog of course, somebody mentioned a
Talbot on Lovel's banner, but in fact the Talbot was naturally the emblem of
John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, and though similar, Lovel's was a less
particular breed of dog.
Paul
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to
agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet
to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks
doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>
> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict
a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly
imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a
wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and
Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>
> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort,
but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>
> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like
padlocks to me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 21:52:34
Hi, David
I will have to check out YouTube. I don't recall the kids, particularly, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were annoying. Maybe Shrewsbury was the same kid who played Peter von Frankenstein in *Son of Frankenstein* the same year (1939) a more annoying little poppet I can't think of. The kid in *Son of Frankenstein* was named Donnie Dunagan, and he came complete with a mop top of Shirley Temple curls. I think I'll recognize him if I see him.
Actually I have the tape of the movie around here somewhere, but all my tapes are out of order and most are still packed in cartons from my move, so YouTube is easier.
Karloff made a striking executioner/torturer (I thought his name was Mord rather than Mort, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.) His head was shaved, or he wore a skull cap, and they gave him a clubfoot. That and a big f***-in' axe, which he spent a lot of time sharpening.
But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them off. Give me a break!!!
I am a big fan of the 1930's Universal horror movies, so I had big hopes for *ToL.* But it was pretty awful.
I think Vincent Price plays Clarence, btw.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Just some of my dry northern humour. Not that I didn't mean it.
Tower Of London is probably worth watching for Boris Karloff's faithful Mort; surely the inspiration for A Game of Throne's Mord. Also the chamber maids going about their daily "doodies". Oh, and young Richard of Shrewsbury. No wonder someone smothered him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdl2WqCulg
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Dear David
You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
I will have to check out YouTube. I don't recall the kids, particularly, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were annoying. Maybe Shrewsbury was the same kid who played Peter von Frankenstein in *Son of Frankenstein* the same year (1939) a more annoying little poppet I can't think of. The kid in *Son of Frankenstein* was named Donnie Dunagan, and he came complete with a mop top of Shirley Temple curls. I think I'll recognize him if I see him.
Actually I have the tape of the movie around here somewhere, but all my tapes are out of order and most are still packed in cartons from my move, so YouTube is easier.
Karloff made a striking executioner/torturer (I thought his name was Mord rather than Mort, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.) His head was shaved, or he wore a skull cap, and they gave him a clubfoot. That and a big f***-in' axe, which he spent a lot of time sharpening.
But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them off. Give me a break!!!
I am a big fan of the 1930's Universal horror movies, so I had big hopes for *ToL.* But it was pretty awful.
I think Vincent Price plays Clarence, btw.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Just some of my dry northern humour. Not that I didn't mean it.
Tower Of London is probably worth watching for Boris Karloff's faithful Mort; surely the inspiration for A Game of Throne's Mord. Also the chamber maids going about their daily "doodies". Oh, and young Richard of Shrewsbury. No wonder someone smothered him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdl2WqCulg
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Dear David
You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 22:04:41
Johanne said:
________________________________
But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them off. Give me a break!!!
I just watched that bit! And yes Vincent Price is a very petulant Clarence. I can't wait for the butt of Malmsey.
________________________________
But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them off. Give me a break!!!
I just watched that bit! And yes Vincent Price is a very petulant Clarence. I can't wait for the butt of Malmsey.
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 22:36:11
My bad, it is Mord, same as AGOT.
There's a very similar character in "The Bloody Judge" too:
WARNING!: Torture scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueMXdN96cpU
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 21:52
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi, David
I will have to check out YouTube. I don't recall the kids, particularly, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were annoying. Maybe Shrewsbury was the same kid who played Peter von Frankenstein in *Son of Frankenstein* the same year (1939) a more annoying little poppet I can't think of. The kid in *Son of Frankenstein* was named Donnie Dunagan, and he came complete with a mop top of Shirley Temple curls. I think I'll recognize him if I see him.
Actually I have the tape of the movie around here somewhere, but all my tapes are out of order and most are still packed in cartons from my move, so YouTube is easier.
Karloff made a striking executioner/torturer (I thought his name was Mord rather than Mort, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.) His head was shaved, or he wore a skull cap, and they gave him a clubfoot. That and a big f***-in' axe, which he spent a lot of time sharpening.
But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them off. Give me a break!!!
I am a big fan of the 1930's Universal horror movies, so I had big hopes for *ToL.* But it was pretty awful.
I think Vincent Price plays Clarence, btw.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Just some of my dry northern humour. Not that I didn't mean it.
Tower Of London is probably worth watching for Boris Karloff's faithful Mort; surely the inspiration for A Game of Throne's Mord. Also the chamber maids going about their daily "doodies". Oh, and young Richard of Shrewsbury. No wonder someone smothered him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdl2WqCulg
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Dear David
You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
There's a very similar character in "The Bloody Judge" too:
WARNING!: Torture scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueMXdN96cpU
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 21:52
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hi, David
I will have to check out YouTube. I don't recall the kids, particularly, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were annoying. Maybe Shrewsbury was the same kid who played Peter von Frankenstein in *Son of Frankenstein* the same year (1939) a more annoying little poppet I can't think of. The kid in *Son of Frankenstein* was named Donnie Dunagan, and he came complete with a mop top of Shirley Temple curls. I think I'll recognize him if I see him.
Actually I have the tape of the movie around here somewhere, but all my tapes are out of order and most are still packed in cartons from my move, so YouTube is easier.
Karloff made a striking executioner/torturer (I thought his name was Mord rather than Mort, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.) His head was shaved, or he wore a skull cap, and they gave him a clubfoot. That and a big f***-in' axe, which he spent a lot of time sharpening.
But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them off. Give me a break!!!
I am a big fan of the 1930's Universal horror movies, so I had big hopes for *ToL.* But it was pretty awful.
I think Vincent Price plays Clarence, btw.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Just some of my dry northern humour. Not that I didn't mean it.
Tower Of London is probably worth watching for Boris Karloff's faithful Mort; surely the inspiration for A Game of Throne's Mord. Also the chamber maids going about their daily "doodies". Oh, and young Richard of Shrewsbury. No wonder someone smothered him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdl2WqCulg
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Dear David
You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
Loyaulte me lie,
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
George
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
> >
> >
> > In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
> > results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
> > to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
> > imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
> > if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
> > TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
> > something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
> > 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
> > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
> > there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
> > it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
> > everything have to be so graphic....?
> > > When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
> > Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
> > and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
> > execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
> > > > According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
> > as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
> > > > Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> > Richard kill Henry VI?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
> > sandwiches.....:0)
> > > > I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
> > the 15th century....:0/
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
> > by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
> > the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
> > as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
> > alive far longer than they wished to!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
> > chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-23 22:38:57
This is the Saturday afternoon kids' matinee version of *Richard III.* I
will say it's lots of fun in spots.
I liked the chimney sweeps.
And Rathbone makes a physically imposing Gloucester, and there's a family
resemblance among the three brothers. You're certainly right about Clarence
being petulant!
The director, Rowland V. Lee, was British and the director of *Son of
Frankenstein,* which is an excellent addition to the Frankenstein genre. The
screenplay was written by Lee's brother.
Neither of the boys were the little fellow who was in *Son of Frankenstein.*
I guess they wanted brunettes, not blondes.
Loyaulte me lie,
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: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Johanne said:
________________________________
But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that
they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he
plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them
off. Give me a break!!!
I just watched that bit! And yes Vincent Price is a very petulant Clarence.
I can't wait for the butt of Malmsey.
will say it's lots of fun in spots.
I liked the chimney sweeps.
And Rathbone makes a physically imposing Gloucester, and there's a family
resemblance among the three brothers. You're certainly right about Clarence
being petulant!
The director, Rowland V. Lee, was British and the director of *Son of
Frankenstein,* which is an excellent addition to the Frankenstein genre. The
screenplay was written by Lee's brother.
Neither of the boys were the little fellow who was in *Son of Frankenstein.*
I guess they wanted brunettes, not blondes.
Loyaulte me lie,
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: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
Richard kill Henry VI?)
Johanne said:
________________________________
But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that
they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he
plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them
off. Give me a break!!!
I just watched that bit! And yes Vincent Price is a very petulant Clarence.
I can't wait for the butt of Malmsey.
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-24 09:30:19
Indeed the "dog" was from his COA as you say.
Paul
On 23 Nov 2012, at 21:40, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hi, Paul -
>
> That was me. I am sure I read in one or two places that Lovell had a talbot
> on his COA or the achievement - I noticed it because he wasn't a "Talbot,"
> and I was surprised. However, I haven't been able to find where I read that
> either.
>
>
>
> I guess that's not the point - the point is that in the bit of doggerel, the
> nicknames for Catesby and Ratcliffe were taken from their names, while it
> *appears* that Lovell's came from the dog on his COA. I think.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:16 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
> power?
>
>
>
>
>
> Just to add to the confusion, though I'm sure it didn't often confuse the
> men fighting, except at Barnet in the fog of course, somebody mentioned a
> Talbot on Lovel's banner, but in fact the Talbot was naturally the emblem of
> John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, and though similar, Lovel's was a less
> particular breed of dog.
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
>
>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to
> agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet
> to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks
> doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>>
>> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict
> a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly
> imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a
> wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and
> Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>>
>> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort,
> but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>>
>> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like
> padlocks to me.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 23 Nov 2012, at 21:40, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hi, Paul -
>
> That was me. I am sure I read in one or two places that Lovell had a talbot
> on his COA or the achievement - I noticed it because he wasn't a "Talbot,"
> and I was surprised. However, I haven't been able to find where I read that
> either.
>
>
>
> I guess that's not the point - the point is that in the bit of doggerel, the
> nicknames for Catesby and Ratcliffe were taken from their names, while it
> *appears* that Lovell's came from the dog on his COA. I think.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:16 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
> power?
>
>
>
>
>
> Just to add to the confusion, though I'm sure it didn't often confuse the
> men fighting, except at Barnet in the fog of course, somebody mentioned a
> Talbot on Lovel's banner, but in fact the Talbot was naturally the emblem of
> John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, and though similar, Lovel's was a less
> particular breed of dog.
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
>
>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to
> agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet
> to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks
> doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>>
>> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict
> a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly
> imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a
> wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and
> Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>>
>> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort,
> but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>>
>> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like
> padlocks to me.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 09:31:16
What's a "tape"? :-)
Paul
On 23 Nov 2012, at 21:52, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hi, David
>
>
>
> I will have to check out YouTube. I don't recall the kids, particularly, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were annoying. Maybe Shrewsbury was the same kid who played Peter von Frankenstein in *Son of Frankenstein* the same year (1939) a more annoying little poppet I can't think of. The kid in *Son of Frankenstein* was named Donnie Dunagan, and he came complete with a mop top of Shirley Temple curls. I think I'll recognize him if I see him.
>
>
>
> Actually I have the tape of the movie around here somewhere, but all my tapes are out of order and most are still packed in cartons from my move, so YouTube is easier.
>
>
>
> Karloff made a striking executioner/torturer (I thought his name was Mord rather than Mort, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.) His head was shaved, or he wore a skull cap, and they gave him a clubfoot. That and a big f***-in' axe, which he spent a lot of time sharpening.
>
>
>
> But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them off. Give me a break!!!
>
>
>
> I am a big fan of the 1930's Universal horror movies, so I had big hopes for *ToL.* But it was pretty awful.
>
>
>
> I think Vincent Price plays Clarence, btw.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:01 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
>
> Just some of my dry northern humour. Not that I didn't mean it.
>
> Tower Of London is probably worth watching for Boris Karloff's faithful Mort; surely the inspiration for A Game of Throne's Mord. Also the chamber maids going about their daily "doodies". Oh, and young Richard of Shrewsbury. No wonder someone smothered him.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdl2WqCulg
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 12:54
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> Dear David
>
> You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
>
> Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
>
> On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of david rayner
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
>
> Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
> To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
> Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
>
>> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
>> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
>>>
>>>
>>> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
>>> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
>>> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
>>> imho.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Email - jltournier60@...
>>>
>>> or jltournier@...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "With God, all things are possible."
>>>
>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
>>> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
>>> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
>>> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
>>> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
>>> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
>>> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
>>> everything have to be so graphic....?
>>>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
>>> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
>>> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
>>> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
>>> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
>>> sandwiches.....:0)
>>>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
>>> the 15th century....:0/
>>>>> Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
>>> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
>>> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
>>> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
>>> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
>>> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 23 Nov 2012, at 21:52, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hi, David
>
>
>
> I will have to check out YouTube. I don't recall the kids, particularly, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were annoying. Maybe Shrewsbury was the same kid who played Peter von Frankenstein in *Son of Frankenstein* the same year (1939) a more annoying little poppet I can't think of. The kid in *Son of Frankenstein* was named Donnie Dunagan, and he came complete with a mop top of Shirley Temple curls. I think I'll recognize him if I see him.
>
>
>
> Actually I have the tape of the movie around here somewhere, but all my tapes are out of order and most are still packed in cartons from my move, so YouTube is easier.
>
>
>
> Karloff made a striking executioner/torturer (I thought his name was Mord rather than Mort, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.) His head was shaved, or he wore a skull cap, and they gave him a clubfoot. That and a big f***-in' axe, which he spent a lot of time sharpening.
>
>
>
> But as far as Richard is concerned. . . the most striking touch was that they had Richard moving little dolls around in a miniature throne room as he plotted and then removing them one by one as he succeeded in killing them off. Give me a break!!!
>
>
>
> I am a big fan of the 1930's Universal horror movies, so I had big hopes for *ToL.* But it was pretty awful.
>
>
>
> I think Vincent Price plays Clarence, btw.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:01 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
>
> Just some of my dry northern humour. Not that I didn't mean it.
>
> Tower Of London is probably worth watching for Boris Karloff's faithful Mort; surely the inspiration for A Game of Throne's Mord. Also the chamber maids going about their daily "doodies". Oh, and young Richard of Shrewsbury. No wonder someone smothered him.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdl2WqCulg
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 12:54
> Subject: RE: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
> Dear David
>
> You are setting up a straw man. No one is arguing for excision of all violence or compulsory viewing of anything. But then you knew that.
>
> Let me cite an example: Shakespeare. Plenty of violence (mostly off-stage) -but so much more!
>
> On the other hand, you would probably enjoy the movie *Tower of London,* (1939) starring Basil Rathbone as, you know, that diabolical hunchback, plotting for the throne, which was described by one critic as being like Shakespeare's *Richard III,* with all of the gore and none of the art. I prefer the art even though neither are definitely not the *real* Richard!
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of david rayner
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:37 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Yes, definitively no sex or violence in the Bible. Or Shakespeare. Or Dante. We are being hopelessly depraved and corrupted by Harry Potter and co. TV should just be one, long, puritan sermon, with viewing compulsory for everyone.
>
> Well, I'm off to get my latest fix of S. & V. with Spartacus: Gods of the Arena.
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
> To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:30
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> TV programs are all about content nothing about quality sadly sex,violence and extreme behavior sells programs this equates to revenue.
> Society has always been drawn to this TV brings it into your home, luckily you can change channel or turn off
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:
>
>> Agreed there Johanne.....:0/
>> OT...the same goes for wildlife programmes.....Eileen
>>>
>>>
>>> In the old days, they would just show the axe coming down and never show the
>>> results. Much more tasteful. Don't need all the gore it sure doesn't add
>>> to the story. It's just another sign of the degeneration of Western culture,
>>> imho.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Email - jltournier60@...
>>>
>>> or jltournier@...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "With God, all things are possible."
>>>
>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:25 AM
>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes...those scenes as well...Seriously I find them disturbing...Especially
>>> if your not pre-warned. Another awful and sickening scene was again in
>>> TheTudors, the execution of Robert Aske.... I just wish they could leave
>>> something to the imagination....Its horrible..Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I'm not the only one who hates the beginning of Cate Blanchett's
>>> 'Elizabeth'? As my mother used to say 'they're only acting'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:29
>>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Eeeeeeww...I know...Do you know I bought a boxed set of The Tudors and
>>> there is one of the series I cannot watch as someone mentioned on here that
>>> it had Roos the Cook being boiled at Smithfield featured in it...Why does
>>> everything have to be so graphic....?
>>>> When we were watching it on TV I had to leave the room with the burning of
>>> Anne Askew with instructions to my husband to "keep the sound turned down"
>>> and 'call me when its over" hahahahaha...I am such a wimp! Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And just to cheer you there is a graphic description of Colyngbourne's
>>> execution in Jarman's 'We Speak No Treason'.
>>>>> According to David Starkey (ouch!) the punishment was introduced by Ed1
>>> as a way of suppressing the Welsh rebelsÃÂ ÃÂ HilaryÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:18
>>>>> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
>>> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh Paul...Puhleeeez...I was just about to enjoy my lunch, roast beef
>>> sandwiches.....:0)
>>>>> I can tell you something...I would have really really behaved myself in
>>> the 15th century....:0/
>>>>> Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eileen, if you must know, (:- first were the private parts, sliced off
>>> by an executioner as skilled as any surgeon. Privates were burnt in view of
>>> the victim. Then he was opened and his internal organs removed as slowly and
>>> as agonisingly as possible. It is on record that many of the victims stayed
>>> alive far longer than they wished to!
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 22:47, EileenB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How could anyone be capable of speech after having all sorts of bits
>>> chopped off and your intestines yanked out...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 10:04:30
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 10:42:53
Ta Doug, I bet in his own terms he got a lot right! Hilary
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:27
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary Jones wrote:
"Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long
time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my
time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used
that agile mind to invent parish registers!
//snip//
Welcome to the board!
And thanks for that word "poddling", I've never heard it before but it may
very well describe what we're doing here, as well.
Oh, and trust Dr. Morton to get something wrong again!
Doug
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 17:27
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary Jones wrote:
"Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, from the UK and have been with R3 for a very long
time. I'm a social and economic historian by training and spend most of my
time poddling round in parish records and wills - oh that Dr Morton had used
that agile mind to invent parish registers!
//snip//
Welcome to the board!
And thanks for that word "poddling", I've never heard it before but it may
very well describe what we're doing here, as well.
Oh, and trust Dr. Morton to get something wrong again!
Doug
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 14:52:34
I'm sure your book requires no tarting up to be successful, Hilary. I'm a visual artist, first, and a writer only secondarily. I had the luck to work in publishing for 20 years, so I understand layouts, bleeds, gutters, signatures, drop-down caps, etc. At one time, I did the annual report for a big corporation.... And in those days, they used manual "keyline/paste up" techniques.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 16:38:13
Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 18:05:31
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
>
> JudyÂ
May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
Katy
>
> Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
>
> JudyÂ
May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
Katy
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 18:47:25
Thanks :-) I'll check it out. Most of the music is more along the lines of Jeff Buckley singing Corpus Christi Carol and tunes by Dead Can Dance and Medieval Babes, but I have some, like "Chain" by Fleetwood Mac (written by Buckingham et al.) and "Feel a Whole Lot Better" by The Byrds, I couldn't resist....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
>
> JudyÂ
May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
Katy
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
>
> JudyÂ
May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
Katy
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 19:00:09
BTW, my friend Patty once did Richard III: The Rock Opera (much of it humourous, rather than serious, of course), so I have her to thank for most of the suggestions.... "It's Good To Be King," for example.... On the other hand, "Won't Back Down" actually works pretty well. And Henry's theme was The Who, "Behind Blue Eyes." :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
>
> JudyÂ
May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
Katy
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
>
> JudyÂ
May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
Katy
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 19:05:47
And for Frances Lovell... 'Going Underground' by The Jam ;)
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> BTW, my friend Patty once did Richard III: The Rock Opera (much of it humourous, rather than serious, of course), so I have her to thank for most of the suggestions.... "It's Good To Be King," for example.... On the other hand, "Won't Back Down" actually works pretty well. And Henry's theme was The Who, "Behind Blue Eyes." :-)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
> >
> > JudyÂÂ
>
> May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> BTW, my friend Patty once did Richard III: The Rock Opera (much of it humourous, rather than serious, of course), so I have her to thank for most of the suggestions.... "It's Good To Be King," for example.... On the other hand, "Won't Back Down" actually works pretty well. And Henry's theme was The Who, "Behind Blue Eyes." :-)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
> >
> > JudyÂÂ
>
> May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 19:17:59
Good one, LoL! :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
And for Frances Lovell... 'Going Underground' by The Jam ;)
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> BTW, my friend Patty once did Richard III: The Rock Opera (much of it humourous, rather than serious, of course), so I have her to thank for most of the suggestions.... "It's Good To Be King," for example.... On the other hand, "Won't Back Down" actually works pretty well. And Henry's theme was The Who, "Behind Blue Eyes." :-)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
> >
> > JudyÃÂ
>
> May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
And for Frances Lovell... 'Going Underground' by The Jam ;)
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> BTW, my friend Patty once did Richard III: The Rock Opera (much of it humourous, rather than serious, of course), so I have her to thank for most of the suggestions.... "It's Good To Be King," for example.... On the other hand, "Won't Back Down" actually works pretty well. And Henry's theme was The Who, "Behind Blue Eyes." :-)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
> >
> > JudyÃÂ
>
> May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-24 19:31:36
That was the general idea. Some selections had me ROTFL; Patty's great at recalling even obscure stuff, and she filled a 90-min cassette tape (remember those?)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
And for Frances Lovell... 'Going Underground' by The Jam ;)
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> BTW, my friend Patty once did Richard III: The Rock Opera (much of it humourous, rather than serious, of course), so I have her to thank for most of the suggestions.... "It's Good To Be King," for example.... On the other hand, "Won't Back Down" actually works pretty well. And Henry's theme was The Who, "Behind Blue Eyes." :-)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
> >
> > JudyÃÂ
>
> May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
And for Frances Lovell... 'Going Underground' by The Jam ;)
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> BTW, my friend Patty once did Richard III: The Rock Opera (much of it humourous, rather than serious, of course), so I have her to thank for most of the suggestions.... "It's Good To Be King," for example.... On the other hand, "Won't Back Down" actually works pretty well. And Henry's theme was The Who, "Behind Blue Eyes." :-)
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
> >
> > JudyÃÂ
>
> May I suggest Mike & the Mechanics' "Taken In?" It should be appropriate for several events in Richard's life.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-25 00:08:26
There were no dogs or wolves on the Lovel coat of arms.
They used such a device as the CREST on their heraldic achievement, that is the bit that sits on top above the coat of arms (which is only the shield).
But, once again, the dog/wolf is an allusion to the family name Lovel = Lupus = Wolf = Dog.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 9:30
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Indeed the "dog" was from his COA as you say.
Paul
On 23 Nov 2012, at 21:40, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hi, Paul -
>
> That was me. I am sure I read in one or two places that Lovell had a talbot
> on his COA or the achievement - I noticed it because he wasn't a "Talbot,"
> and I was surprised. However, I haven't been able to find where I read that
> either.
>
>
>
> I guess that's not the point - the point is that in the bit of doggerel, the
> nicknames for Catesby and Ratcliffe were taken from their names, while it
> *appears* that Lovell's came from the dog on his COA. I think.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:16 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
> power?
>
>
>
>
>
> Just to add to the confusion, though I'm sure it didn't often confuse the
> men fighting, except at Barnet in the fog of course, somebody mentioned a
> Talbot on Lovel's banner, but in fact the Talbot was naturally the emblem of
> John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, and though similar, Lovel's was a less
> particular breed of dog.
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
>
>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to
> agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet
> to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks
> doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>>
>> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict
> a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly
> imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a
> wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and
> Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>>
>> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort,
> but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>>
>> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like
> padlocks to me.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
They used such a device as the CREST on their heraldic achievement, that is the bit that sits on top above the coat of arms (which is only the shield).
But, once again, the dog/wolf is an allusion to the family name Lovel = Lupus = Wolf = Dog.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 9:30
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Indeed the "dog" was from his COA as you say.
Paul
On 23 Nov 2012, at 21:40, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hi, Paul -
>
> That was me. I am sure I read in one or two places that Lovell had a talbot
> on his COA or the achievement - I noticed it because he wasn't a "Talbot,"
> and I was surprised. However, I haven't been able to find where I read that
> either.
>
>
>
> I guess that's not the point - the point is that in the bit of doggerel, the
> nicknames for Catesby and Ratcliffe were taken from their names, while it
> *appears* that Lovell's came from the dog on his COA. I think.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:16 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
> power?
>
>
>
>
>
> Just to add to the confusion, though I'm sure it didn't often confuse the
> men fighting, except at Barnet in the fog of course, somebody mentioned a
> Talbot on Lovel's banner, but in fact the Talbot was naturally the emblem of
> John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, and though similar, Lovel's was a less
> particular breed of dog.
> Paul
>
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:18, justcarol67 wrote:
>
>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually it refers to the emblem he used on his standard.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Help. We've been discussing his heraldic emblem, on which no one seems to
> agree. It *should* be a dog for "Lovell our dog" to make sense, but I've yet
> to see an image of his arms/standard/heraldic emblem that really looks
> doglike (or can be definitively linked to him).
>>
>> Can you link us to an image or description of his standard? Does it depict
> a wolf (the supposed Lupellus = "little wolf" connection after a possibly
> imaginary hot-tempered ancestor), a spaniel ("the king's spaniel"), a
> wolfhound/talbot (suggesting a connection to the Shrewsbury Talbots and
> Eleanor, the "secret queen"), or some other dog?
>>
>> I can see a Lovell/loyal connection if the emblem is a dog of some sort,
> but no one has yet provided a convincing way of putting it altogether.
>>
>> By the way, those "buckets" on Francis's grandfather's tomb look like
> padlocks to me.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-25 16:07:05
I think that's great! 'Who Wants to Live Forever?' always to me had a place somewhere in there. Perhaps it's Mercury's voice?
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 16:38
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 16:38
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-25 16:55:39
Good suggestion.
About a year ago, I read House of Leaves, a novel that originated on the Internet. It reminded me of Nabokov's Pale Fire and Sterne's Tristram Shandy. And years ago, I read Julian by Gore Vidal, in which a couple of "monks" annotate the story of the Emperor Julian, called The Apostate.
When I had started writing, my novel was a story within a story, with modern characters discovering (and commenting upon) an old manuscript - a collation of letters, etc. But as I wrote, the 15th C. elements just took over. Now, the modern bits occur in the guise of [Notes to the Reader], as if the letters and other documents are Real and need explanation. I've never worked on a project so complex, but enjoy the challenge and intend to see it to completion, regardless whether I "publish" or not. As I wrote, I found myself listening to music, old and modern, including my friend's Ricardian "rock opera" tape; at first I heard these as part of the 21st C. outer story, but I continue to find them curiously inspiring, even now. "Won't Back Down," by Petty was very anthemic, first for Richard and later for Lovell, for example. And Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms" has some verses that seemed to resonate about the ultimate failure of the Yorkists at Stoke, etc.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I think that's great! 'Who Wants to Live Forever?' always to me had a place somewhere in there. Perhaps it's Mercury's voice?
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 16:38
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
About a year ago, I read House of Leaves, a novel that originated on the Internet. It reminded me of Nabokov's Pale Fire and Sterne's Tristram Shandy. And years ago, I read Julian by Gore Vidal, in which a couple of "monks" annotate the story of the Emperor Julian, called The Apostate.
When I had started writing, my novel was a story within a story, with modern characters discovering (and commenting upon) an old manuscript - a collation of letters, etc. But as I wrote, the 15th C. elements just took over. Now, the modern bits occur in the guise of [Notes to the Reader], as if the letters and other documents are Real and need explanation. I've never worked on a project so complex, but enjoy the challenge and intend to see it to completion, regardless whether I "publish" or not. As I wrote, I found myself listening to music, old and modern, including my friend's Ricardian "rock opera" tape; at first I heard these as part of the 21st C. outer story, but I continue to find them curiously inspiring, even now. "Won't Back Down," by Petty was very anthemic, first for Richard and later for Lovell, for example. And Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms" has some verses that seemed to resonate about the ultimate failure of the Yorkists at Stoke, etc.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I think that's great! 'Who Wants to Live Forever?' always to me had a place somewhere in there. Perhaps it's Mercury's voice?
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 16:38
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Another thing, Hilary (and most Ricardians will likely cringe), I'm linking certain chapters to the URLs for particular music, and some is popular music. The melodies/arrangements may be very modern, but the lyrics reflect some ideas that parallel the 15th C. material. Tom Petty will be very surprised when I ask permission to link to a couple of his songs, I'm sure...but the words seem perfect.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-25 21:14:31
david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, you need to click on the image in the top left.
>
Carol responds:
Thank you, David! So the emblem is clearly a dog (I'll take your word for it that the dog is a talbot). I notice that he has a gold collar, indicating a rich owner. I can see how enemies of both Lovell and Richard could turn that image into "the king's spaniel" (a phrase for which I still don't have a source) and "Lovell our dog." Makes much more sense than trying to force the Lupus/lupellus/Lovell etymology, with its suggestion of a wolf, into an image of Lovell as King Richard's tame dog.
By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
Carol
>
> Sorry, you need to click on the image in the top left.
>
Carol responds:
Thank you, David! So the emblem is clearly a dog (I'll take your word for it that the dog is a talbot). I notice that he has a gold collar, indicating a rich owner. I can see how enemies of both Lovell and Richard could turn that image into "the king's spaniel" (a phrase for which I still don't have a source) and "Lovell our dog." Makes much more sense than trying to force the Lupus/lupellus/Lovell etymology, with its suggestion of a wolf, into an image of Lovell as King Richard's tame dog.
By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-25 21:41:30
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
>
Carol responds:
Not John Howard, who was loyal to Richard. It was William Stanley (actually, some seventeen or so years older than Richard) who called him "Old Dick" (in a letter, IIRC). It had nothing to do with treasuring gifts that Richard gave him, though, or with Richard's tendency to right wrongs. He probably thought that "Old Dick" was making him work too hard.
But, yes, Kendall does mention it--and notes the age difference as well, I think, as Stanley's disrespectful tone.
Carol
>
> One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
>
Carol responds:
Not John Howard, who was loyal to Richard. It was William Stanley (actually, some seventeen or so years older than Richard) who called him "Old Dick" (in a letter, IIRC). It had nothing to do with treasuring gifts that Richard gave him, though, or with Richard's tendency to right wrongs. He probably thought that "Old Dick" was making him work too hard.
But, yes, Kendall does mention it--and notes the age difference as well, I think, as Stanley's disrespectful tone.
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-25 21:52:34
Carol, Sorry, I didn't mean Hiscox and treasuring gifts to relate to 'Old Dick'. They were two separate things. Thank you for correcting me on StanleyvHoward. and PMK. It must be some other historian who used it as an example of how R was considered a 'bit serious' for his age - I run a business and don't always have that much time to crawl through all my books (well that's my excuse). As for Stanley, well there was this endemic hate about the Harrington affair, wasn't there? Hilary
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012, 21:41
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
>
Carol responds:
Not John Howard, who was loyal to Richard. It was William Stanley (actually, some seventeen or so years older than Richard) who called him "Old Dick" (in a letter, IIRC). It had nothing to do with treasuring gifts that Richard gave him, though, or with Richard's tendency to right wrongs. He probably thought that "Old Dick" was making him work too hard.
But, yes, Kendall does mention it--and notes the age difference as well, I think, as Stanley's disrespectful tone.
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012, 21:41
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> One rather nice thing that Hiscox points out is that some of those who had known Richard and been given gifts by him treasured them for years' afterwards. Is it PMK who has John Howard calling R 'Old Dick' because he took things a lot more seriously than others - and often tried to right them? Hilary
>
Carol responds:
Not John Howard, who was loyal to Richard. It was William Stanley (actually, some seventeen or so years older than Richard) who called him "Old Dick" (in a letter, IIRC). It had nothing to do with treasuring gifts that Richard gave him, though, or with Richard's tendency to right wrongs. He probably thought that "Old Dick" was making him work too hard.
But, yes, Kendall does mention it--and notes the age difference as well, I think, as Stanley's disrespectful tone.
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-25 21:56:41
I once used to write Annual Reports - but that was another life to which I don't want to return! Seriously, you're stuff sounds very impressive. I so envy those who are good at visual arts. I started my career in the age of the stencil.
Many thanks for your encouragement. Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 14:52
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I'm sure your book requires no tarting up to be successful, Hilary. I'm a visual artist, first, and a writer only secondarily. I had the luck to work in publishing for 20 years, so I understand layouts, bleeds, gutters, signatures, drop-down caps, etc. At one time, I did the annual report for a big corporation.... And in those days, they used manual "keyline/paste up" techniques.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Many thanks for your encouragement. Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 14:52
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I'm sure your book requires no tarting up to be successful, Hilary. I'm a visual artist, first, and a writer only secondarily. I had the luck to work in publishing for 20 years, so I understand layouts, bleeds, gutters, signatures, drop-down caps, etc. At one time, I did the annual report for a big corporation.... And in those days, they used manual "keyline/paste up" techniques.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
It makes my scribblings seem very humble Judy Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 14:16
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Thanks for the encouragement. I envision each "page" as a two-page spread, with text one side, art on the other, and blocks of text will start with "illuminated" caps, documents, like letters, will show on "parchment" colour in a slightly different font, etc. The rectangle of the computer and tablet screen is perfectly suited to this, and for easier reading, the text can always be enlarged to fill the space.... For a semi-Luddite, this is a big leap for me. I'm even considering links to music....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Judy, That sounds beautiful! Ishita, I did think of Kindle but it's how you distinguish it from a lot of the more lurid books on there - you have to do your own cover and most of the copyright free stuff has been grabbed already. I may wait for the 'enthusiasm' for TKD to die down and give it a try. I can always 'keyword' it to PG, R3 etc. As you know to get a book published you have to guarantee at least 600 UK sales (strangely they don't think of international and Amazon). That's why so many little gems on R3 are now so expensive; because no-one would ever sponsor them to a second edition. Thank you both for your support Hilary
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
I second that notion. I, too, am working on a book...with the Kiss of Death: Colour illustrations. Nobody will accept the cost, so I plan to try for Ebook, with "bells and whistles." My illustrator is a stained glass artist, and the colours glow on screen, far beyond their potential with normal photo/colour separation techniques. I hope the format will allow for many visual additions not easily doable, short of the most expensive art books. Later, if the book is successful, a publisher may come to me. Or not. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
Hilary, I would love to read your book! Have you thought about self publishing?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Karen,
> I too enjoyed your review. But writing historical fiction and getting it published in the UK is HARD. A year ago I finished a novel about Anne Neville. I finished it at 1475 with R's disenchantment with E4 - I had to, as you may know new writers are now only allowed 100,000 words. The idea was to 'flesh out' Warwick (who I find much more attractive than E4), Margaret of A, Prince Edward, Cis, George etc and all the others who have become cliched in so many historical novels and to give a new take on Anne as the pro-active one in instigating the marriage.
> It did not go down well.
> I was told to:
> take Warwick out or make him more like the Sheriff of Nottingham
> devote only a chapter or so to the 'boring bit' in France and somehow to bring R in there (what a secret visit that no-one knew about?)
> make George the Antichrist
> make Margaret a schizophrenic witch and devote as little time to her as possible
> make R either Mr Darcy or Shakespeare's villain
> BUT they did like my take on Cis as the spendthrift Duchess - which she was
> Apparently that's what sells books and that's why PG does so well - even though it's admitted her prose is poor and her history sometimes inaccurate.
> Not much has really changed since Shakespeare, has it (although his writing was better)?
> I have not given up though Cheers Hilary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
>
>
>
> Liz, I wasn't at all sure who may or may not have known that the blog in
> question was mine. I didn't take offence at either Ishita or Judith's words.
> I did want to reassure both of them that my blog isn't a hotbed of
> anti-Richard feeling, that I'm very much open to differing opinions and that
> none of my regular readers are rude, nasty or bullies.
>
> Thanks for your kind words about the blog.
>
> Karen
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:42:44 +0000 (GMT)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did
> Richard kill Henry VI?)
>
> Karen,
>
> I don't want to put words in Judy's mouth but I don't think her comments
> were directed at your blog. At least that's not how I read it at all. I
> thought it was a general comment about internet groups/blogs which, as we
> all know, can get heated at times, and I don't just mean the ones about
> Richard either.
>
> I find your blog very interesting even though I certainly don't agree with
> some of the opinions you express on here about Richard.
>
> Liz
>
> Karen said:
> Judith
>
> My blog is very much open to 'differing opinions'. My regular commenters
> have never been 'rude and nasty', nor have they ever 'bulliied' anyone. I
> would have zero tolerance for commenters 'bullying' each other in any way,
> though I welcome discussion and debate. I have certainly never been 'rude
> and nasty' to a commenter, nor have I 'bulliied' anyone. It seems that one
> of the dangers of being tolerant and open is that it attracts judgements
> such as this, sight (and site) unseen. Please feel free to drop by so you
> can judge for yourself. I welcome all sorts of opinions, positions and
> points of view.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <Ishita, save your "breath." There are plenty of such
> groups out there, and
> as a rule, they aren't open to differing opinions. At best, you'll just be
> frustrated; at worst, they will be rude and nasty, and you'll feel bullied.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 01:22:23
I've always thought Richard's emblem should have been a hawk: fierce, loyal, deadly with their weaponry, and they mate for life.
~Wednesday
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
>
> Carol
>
~Wednesday
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
>
> Carol
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 02:05:39
Wednesday, we should have a " like" button!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> I've always thought Richard's emblem should have been a hawk: fierce, loyal, deadly with their weaponry, and they mate for life.
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .
>
> > By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> I've always thought Richard's emblem should have been a hawk: fierce, loyal, deadly with their weaponry, and they mate for life.
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .
>
> > By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 02:10:29
And a big foot like Monty Python!
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Wednesday, we should have a " like" button!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > I've always thought Richard's emblem should have been a hawk: fierce, loyal, deadly with their weaponry, and they mate for life.
> >
> > ~Wednesday
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >
> > > By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Wednesday, we should have a " like" button!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > I've always thought Richard's emblem should have been a hawk: fierce, loyal, deadly with their weaponry, and they mate for life.
> >
> > ~Wednesday
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >
> > > By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-26 04:08:44
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, Sorry, I didn't mean Hiscox and treasuring gifts to relate to 'Old Dick'. They were two separate things. Thank you for correcting me on StanleyvHoward. and PMK. It must be some other historian who used it as an example of how R was considered a 'bit serious' for his age - I run a business and don't always have that much time to crawl through all my books (well that's my excuse). As for Stanley, well there was this endemic hate about the Harrington affair, wasn't there? Hilary
Carol responds:
You're welcome. It was Kendall who remarked on Richard's seriousness in connection with the "Old Dick" remark--he seems to think that William Stanley would not have appreciated Richard's earnestness and his desire to right wrongs. I suspect that he's correct since all the Stanleys seem to have cared about is their own interests.
As for the Harrington matter, didn't it involve Thomas Stanley rather than William? At any rate, I don't think that either Stanley hated Richard. I think they were just trying to decide whether Henry Tudor would give them a better deal (he was, after all, Thomas Stanley's son-in-law)--and, of course, William saw an opportunity and seized it when Richard charged down the hill at Bosworth. They might have felt some resentment of Richard for curtailing their powers with his legislation against livery and maintenance, but my impression of the Stanleys is that they were motivated by ambition and greed, not by hatred (or loyalty or any other emotion).
Carol
>
> Carol, Sorry, I didn't mean Hiscox and treasuring gifts to relate to 'Old Dick'. They were two separate things. Thank you for correcting me on StanleyvHoward. and PMK. It must be some other historian who used it as an example of how R was considered a 'bit serious' for his age - I run a business and don't always have that much time to crawl through all my books (well that's my excuse). As for Stanley, well there was this endemic hate about the Harrington affair, wasn't there? Hilary
Carol responds:
You're welcome. It was Kendall who remarked on Richard's seriousness in connection with the "Old Dick" remark--he seems to think that William Stanley would not have appreciated Richard's earnestness and his desire to right wrongs. I suspect that he's correct since all the Stanleys seem to have cared about is their own interests.
As for the Harrington matter, didn't it involve Thomas Stanley rather than William? At any rate, I don't think that either Stanley hated Richard. I think they were just trying to decide whether Henry Tudor would give them a better deal (he was, after all, Thomas Stanley's son-in-law)--and, of course, William saw an opportunity and seized it when Richard charged down the hill at Bosworth. They might have felt some resentment of Richard for curtailing their powers with his legislation against livery and maintenance, but my impression of the Stanleys is that they were motivated by ambition and greed, not by hatred (or loyalty or any other emotion).
Carol
Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
2012-11-26 10:25:37
Yes it is indeed Thomas who was the one involved in Hornby, but some books do clump them together, particularly when Thomas acquired a grant of the Harrington heiresses after William raised men for Edward in Cheshire. And hate is indeed strong for them - sorry, I was writing late at night; like you say I doubt they knew what emotion was. Opportunist is exactly right and I doubt we will ever undestand why Richard gave them the opportunity with his fundamentally-flawed charge. Hilary
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 November 2012, 4:08
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, Sorry, I didn't mean Hiscox and treasuring gifts to relate to 'Old Dick'. They were two separate things. Thank you for correcting me on StanleyvHoward. and PMK. It must be some other historian who used it as an example of how R was considered a 'bit serious' for his age - I run a business and don't always have that much time to crawl through all my books (well that's my excuse). As for Stanley, well there was this endemic hate about the Harrington affair, wasn't there? Hilary
Carol responds:
You're welcome. It was Kendall who remarked on Richard's seriousness in connection with the "Old Dick" remark--he seems to think that William Stanley would not have appreciated Richard's earnestness and his desire to right wrongs. I suspect that he's correct since all the Stanleys seem to have cared about is their own interests.
As for the Harrington matter, didn't it involve Thomas Stanley rather than William? At any rate, I don't think that either Stanley hated Richard. I think they were just trying to decide whether Henry Tudor would give them a better deal (he was, after all, Thomas Stanley's son-in-law)--and, of course, William saw an opportunity and seized it when Richard charged down the hill at Bosworth. They might have felt some resentment of Richard for curtailing their powers with his legislation against livery and maintenance, but my impression of the Stanleys is that they were motivated by ambition and greed, not by hatred (or loyalty or any other emotion).
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 November 2012, 4:08
Subject: Re: Abuse of power? (was RE: Did Richard kill Henry VI?)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, Sorry, I didn't mean Hiscox and treasuring gifts to relate to 'Old Dick'. They were two separate things. Thank you for correcting me on StanleyvHoward. and PMK. It must be some other historian who used it as an example of how R was considered a 'bit serious' for his age - I run a business and don't always have that much time to crawl through all my books (well that's my excuse). As for Stanley, well there was this endemic hate about the Harrington affair, wasn't there? Hilary
Carol responds:
You're welcome. It was Kendall who remarked on Richard's seriousness in connection with the "Old Dick" remark--he seems to think that William Stanley would not have appreciated Richard's earnestness and his desire to right wrongs. I suspect that he's correct since all the Stanleys seem to have cared about is their own interests.
As for the Harrington matter, didn't it involve Thomas Stanley rather than William? At any rate, I don't think that either Stanley hated Richard. I think they were just trying to decide whether Henry Tudor would give them a better deal (he was, after all, Thomas Stanley's son-in-law)--and, of course, William saw an opportunity and seized it when Richard charged down the hill at Bosworth. They might have felt some resentment of Richard for curtailing their powers with his legislation against livery and maintenance, but my impression of the Stanleys is that they were motivated by ambition and greed, not by hatred (or loyalty or any other emotion).
Carol
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 14:11:14
Carol
//snip//
"I can see how enemies of both Lovell and Richard could turn that image into
"the king's spaniel" (a phrase for which I still don't have a source) and
"Lovell our dog."
//snip//
I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard.
Doug
//snip//
"I can see how enemies of both Lovell and Richard could turn that image into
"the king's spaniel" (a phrase for which I still don't have a source) and
"Lovell our dog."
//snip//
I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard.
Doug
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 14:27:33
"I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard."
Don't know how far back you can take it, but Shakespeare was referencing spaniels in the context of fawning in the 1590s.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012, 15:13
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Carol
//snip//
"I can see how enemies of both Lovell and Richard could turn that image into
"the king's spaniel" (a phrase for which I still don't have a source) and
"Lovell our dog."
//snip//
I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard.
Doug
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard."
Don't know how far back you can take it, but Shakespeare was referencing spaniels in the context of fawning in the 1590s.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012, 15:13
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Carol
//snip//
"I can see how enemies of both Lovell and Richard could turn that image into
"the king's spaniel" (a phrase for which I still don't have a source) and
"Lovell our dog."
//snip//
I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard.
Doug
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 16:37:24
What I find myself wishing is that Monty Python had done "The Life of Richard." The cast would have interrupted certain scenes to award the Like Button to Richard's friends. They'd have interrupted other scenes to apply the Big Foot to Richard's betrayers, with much song and silly smiles. After each silly number, Richard would be instructed to, "Carry on" while Graham, Cleese & Company scurried away.
~Wednesday
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> And a big foot like Monty Python!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wednesday, we should have a " like" button!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I've always thought Richard's emblem should have been a hawk: fierce, loyal, deadly with their weaponry, and they mate for life.
> > >
> > > ~Wednesday
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > >
> > > > By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
~Wednesday
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> And a big foot like Monty Python!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wednesday, we should have a " like" button!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I've always thought Richard's emblem should have been a hawk: fierce, loyal, deadly with their weaponry, and they mate for life.
> > >
> > > ~Wednesday
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > >
> > > > By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 17:53:00
And what shows in "print" may have been long in use via speech.
If I get time, I'll run it thru' the OED.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
"I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard."
Don't know how far back you can take it, but Shakespeare was referencing spaniels in the context of fawning in the 1590s.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012, 15:13
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Carol
//snip//
"I can see how enemies of both Lovell and Richard could turn that image into
"the king's spaniel" (a phrase for which I still don't have a source) and
"Lovell our dog."
//snip//
I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard.
Doug
If I get time, I'll run it thru' the OED.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
"I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard."
Don't know how far back you can take it, but Shakespeare was referencing spaniels in the context of fawning in the 1590s.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012, 15:13
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Carol
//snip//
"I can see how enemies of both Lovell and Richard could turn that image into
"the king's spaniel" (a phrase for which I still don't have a source) and
"Lovell our dog."
//snip//
I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just
when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it
would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't
contemporaneous with Richard.
Doug
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 18:48:18
Doug wrote:
>
> "I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't contemporaneous with Richard."
>
Jonathan responded:
> Don't know how far back you can take it, but Shakespeare was referencing spaniels in the context of fawning in the 1590s.
>
Carol adds:
Oddly enough, I found a reference to "the king's spaniel" in, of all places, the privy purse expenses of Henry VIII (where the reference is to an actual dog): http://www.archive.org/stream/henryprivypurse00nicouoft/henryprivypurse00nicouoft_djvu.txt
So it's at least possible that the sneering reference to Lovell is early Tudor or even contemporary (1483-85).
Carol
>
> "I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't contemporaneous with Richard."
>
Jonathan responded:
> Don't know how far back you can take it, but Shakespeare was referencing spaniels in the context of fawning in the 1590s.
>
Carol adds:
Oddly enough, I found a reference to "the king's spaniel" in, of all places, the privy purse expenses of Henry VIII (where the reference is to an actual dog): http://www.archive.org/stream/henryprivypurse00nicouoft/henryprivypurse00nicouoft_djvu.txt
So it's at least possible that the sneering reference to Lovell is early Tudor or even contemporary (1483-85).
Carol
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 19:07:49
Apparently "spaniel" comes from M.E. and dates from the 14th C. It meant both a small breed of dog AND a fawning person.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Doug wrote:
>
> "I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't contemporaneous with Richard."
>
Jonathan responded:
> Don't know how far back you can take it, but Shakespeare was referencing spaniels in the context of fawning in the 1590s.
>
Carol adds:
Oddly enough, I found a reference to "the king's spaniel" in, of all places, the privy purse expenses of Henry VIII (where the reference is to an actual dog): http://www.archive.org/stream/henryprivypurse00nicouoft/henryprivypurse00nicouoft_djvu.txt
So it's at least possible that the sneering reference to Lovell is early Tudor or even contemporary (1483-85).
Carol
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
Doug wrote:
>
> "I thought spaniels showed up in the UK in the17th century? Or was that just when Charles II took a fancy to a certain breed? If it is the former, it would help date the reference, if only to show that it wasn't contemporaneous with Richard."
>
Jonathan responded:
> Don't know how far back you can take it, but Shakespeare was referencing spaniels in the context of fawning in the 1590s.
>
Carol adds:
Oddly enough, I found a reference to "the king's spaniel" in, of all places, the privy purse expenses of Henry VIII (where the reference is to an actual dog): http://www.archive.org/stream/henryprivypurse00nicouoft/henryprivypurse00nicouoft_djvu.txt
So it's at least possible that the sneering reference to Lovell is early Tudor or even contemporary (1483-85).
Carol
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 20:00:16
You mean this did not happen!!!
Next thing you'll tell me that Santa is not real
Nooooooooo
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> What I find myself wishing is that Monty Python had done "The Life of Richard." The cast would have interrupted certain scenes to award the Like Button to Richard's friends. They'd have interrupted other scenes to apply the Big Foot to Richard's betrayers, with much song and silly smiles. After each silly number, Richard would be instructed to, "Carry on" while Graham, Cleese & Company scurried away.
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> >
> > And a big foot like Monty Python!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wednesday, we should have a " like" button!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've always thought Richard's emblem should have been a hawk: fierce, loyal, deadly with their weaponry, and they mate for life.
> > > >
> > > > ~Wednesday
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > > By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Next thing you'll tell me that Santa is not real
Nooooooooo
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> What I find myself wishing is that Monty Python had done "The Life of Richard." The cast would have interrupted certain scenes to award the Like Button to Richard's friends. They'd have interrupted other scenes to apply the Big Foot to Richard's betrayers, with much song and silly smiles. After each silly number, Richard would be instructed to, "Carry on" while Graham, Cleese & Company scurried away.
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> >
> > And a big foot like Monty Python!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 25, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wednesday, we should have a " like" button!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:22 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've always thought Richard's emblem should have been a hawk: fierce, loyal, deadly with their weaponry, and they mate for life.
> > > >
> > > > ~Wednesday
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > > By the way, I keep encountering unsupported assertions about Viscount Lovell being harsh to his tenants that appear to be simple spillover from Richard to his most devoted friend and follower: If Richard was a ruthless tyrant (which, of course, he wasn't), his supporters must have been equally ruthless--"logic" based on a false premise. Maybe that hostile view of Lovell is somehow connected to the false assertion that his emblem was a wolf. (Of course, people have also assumed that Richard's fierce boar emblem reflected *his* personality. Makes me wish that he had chosen, say, a stag.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-26 23:20:56
George,
It's okay. I dunno about Santa, but Richard liveth yet.
~Weds
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> You mean this did not happen!!!
> Next thing you'll tell me that Santa is not real
> Nooooooooo
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > What I find myself wishing is that Monty Python had done "The Life of Richard." The cast would have interrupted certain scenes to award the Like Button to Richard's friends. They'd have interrupted other scenes to apply the Big Foot to Richard's betrayers, with much song and silly smiles. After each silly number, Richard would be instructed to, "Carry on" while Graham, Cleese & Company scurried away.
> >
> > ~Wednesday
It's okay. I dunno about Santa, but Richard liveth yet.
~Weds
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> You mean this did not happen!!!
> Next thing you'll tell me that Santa is not real
> Nooooooooo
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > What I find myself wishing is that Monty Python had done "The Life of Richard." The cast would have interrupted certain scenes to award the Like Button to Richard's friends. They'd have interrupted other scenes to apply the Big Foot to Richard's betrayers, with much song and silly smiles. After each silly number, Richard would be instructed to, "Carry on" while Graham, Cleese & Company scurried away.
> >
> > ~Wednesday
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-27 10:28:11
Lol.......While a Ricardian still walks this earth this will be the case....
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> George,
>
> It's okay. I dunno about Santa, but Richard liveth yet.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > You mean this did not happen!!!
> > Next thing you'll tell me that Santa is not real
> > Nooooooooo
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > > What I find myself wishing is that Monty Python had done "The Life of Richard." The cast would have interrupted certain scenes to award the Like Button to Richard's friends. They'd have interrupted other scenes to apply the Big Foot to Richard's betrayers, with much song and silly smiles. After each silly number, Richard would be instructed to, "Carry on" while Graham, Cleese & Company scurried away.
> > >
> > > ~Wednesday
>
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> George,
>
> It's okay. I dunno about Santa, but Richard liveth yet.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > You mean this did not happen!!!
> > Next thing you'll tell me that Santa is not real
> > Nooooooooo
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > > What I find myself wishing is that Monty Python had done "The Life of Richard." The cast would have interrupted certain scenes to award the Like Button to Richard's friends. They'd have interrupted other scenes to apply the Big Foot to Richard's betrayers, with much song and silly smiles. After each silly number, Richard would be instructed to, "Carry on" while Graham, Cleese & Company scurried away.
> > >
> > > ~Wednesday
>
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-27 11:21:02
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 7:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
power?
George,
It's okay. I dunno about Santa, but Richard liveth yet.
~Weds
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
<gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> You mean this did not happen!!!
> Next thing you'll tell me that Santa is not real
> Nooooooooo
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > What I find myself wishing is that Monty Python had done "The Life of
Richard." The cast would have interrupted certain scenes to award the Like
Button to Richard's friends. They'd have interrupted other scenes to apply
the Big Foot to Richard's betrayers, with much song and silly smiles. After
each silly number, Richard would be instructed to, "Carry on" while Graham,
Cleese & Company scurried away.
> >
> > ~Wednesday
[JLT] That's inspired, Weds.
I'd rather believe in Richard than Santa.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 7:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of
power?
George,
It's okay. I dunno about Santa, but Richard liveth yet.
~Weds
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
<gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> You mean this did not happen!!!
> Next thing you'll tell me that Santa is not real
> Nooooooooo
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > What I find myself wishing is that Monty Python had done "The Life of
Richard." The cast would have interrupted certain scenes to award the Like
Button to Richard's friends. They'd have interrupted other scenes to apply
the Big Foot to Richard's betrayers, with much song and silly smiles. After
each silly number, Richard would be instructed to, "Carry on" while Graham,
Cleese & Company scurried away.
> >
> > ~Wednesday
[JLT] That's inspired, Weds.
I'd rather believe in Richard than Santa.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
Re: "Lovell our dog" WAS: Abuse of power?
2012-11-27 17:04:09
Judy Thomson wrote:
"Apparently "spaniel" comes from M.E. and dates from the 14th C. It meant
both a small breed of dog AND a fawning person."
Thank you, Judy (and everyone else)! I've read about Charles II and his
spaniels (I believe he gave some as presents and a sign of Royal favor [or
favour]) and that's probably where I got the idea about the breed appearing
then.
Doug
"Apparently "spaniel" comes from M.E. and dates from the 14th C. It meant
both a small breed of dog AND a fawning person."
Thank you, Judy (and everyone else)! I've read about Charles II and his
spaniels (I believe he gave some as presents and a sign of Royal favor [or
favour]) and that's probably where I got the idea about the breed appearing
then.
Doug
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.