Selling Richard

Hi folks,

Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.

You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
Hilary

Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood". 
 
 
Liz:  He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they  should just try and get him?    Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality.   I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks?  I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
 
I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak.  Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "

 but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.   
 
 
 

________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
Subject: Selling Richard

 
Hi folks,

Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.

You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
Hilary

Hi Liz,

I agree he's still got a lot of charisma and you can believe in what he says.

Pity Mary Beard is a Classicist! No, the person doesn't necessarily have to be young; but needs an outlook that appeals to the young.

Interesting what you say about Weir. I can see them all dreaming of revitalising their careers. HIlary

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood". 
>  
>  
> Liz:  He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they  should just try and get him?    Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality.   I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks?  I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
>  
> I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak.  Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "
>
>  but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.   
>  
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Selling Richard
>
>  
> Hi folks,
>
> Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
> Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.
>
> You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> Hilary
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't know all of the mean historians in the case of R3 (I've avoided Weir for 20+ years), but I've seen literary and historical figures be "rehabilitated" in the halls of academia and entertainment when it becomes fashionable to do so. That Wheel of Fortune does turn, and it's Richard's turn to be fashionable.

I predict that once he's officially announced as found, he'll catch people's imaginations and a lot of new amateur fans and professional historians wil jump on board to support him. It will be to their s advantage to say and publish and lecture nice things about him. In return, they will receive tenure, media exposure, personal attention, and money. There will be a blitz of documentaries, docu-dramas, books both fiction and fantasy and non-fiction on every facet of his life, and since Evil! Richard is ancient and passe, I think Good! Richard will receive more attention because that POV is new and hasn't been done before in the mainstream.

Many new historians (and graduate students) will claim him as their own as their own once the media blitz begins, because it's to their advantage to claim him as their own. I hope the old meanies will be shouted down and left to sulk in their corners.

I am so very, very glad the Society found him. That means they can't be dismissed or elbowed aside, no matter who decides to adore Richard, who never has before.

~Weds


--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood". 
>  
>  
> Liz:  He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they  should just try and get him?    Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality.   I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks?  I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
>  
> I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak.  Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "
>
>  but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.   

Michael Woods, if he's sympathetic, would be very nice, indeed. 

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Selling Richard


 
Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood". 
 
 
Liz:  He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they  should just try and get him?    Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality.   I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks?  I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
 
I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak.  Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "

 but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.   
 
 
 

________________________________
From: hjnatdat hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
Subject: Selling Richard

 
Hi folks,

Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.

You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
Hilary

Oh dear God please dont let that happen!...! Dr Starkey clearly does not like Richard, why I do not know..! and Hicks and Weir have both made plenty of money out of maligning Richard...If this happens I do not know how I will contain my rage!...Eileen


>
> You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> Hilary
>

I've obviously re-invigorated the Michael Wood fan club! Just to hear him speak Ango-Saxon is well ....... Hilary

--- In , Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> Michael Woods, if he's sympathetic, would be very nice, indeed. 
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: ""
> Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
>  
> Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood". 
>  
>  
> Liz:  He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they  should just try and get him?    Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality.   I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks?  I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
>  
> I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak.  Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "
>
>  but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.   
>  
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat hjnatdat@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Selling Richard
>
>  
> Hi folks,
>
> Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
> Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.
>
> You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> Hilary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Starkey, Hicks, Weir and co have been very quiet so far, I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback. The Society needs to be ready to refute all myths. The good thing is Philippa, John and Annette are involved and they are working with Channel 4, so their version will be out there before the traditionalists can get going. They should not be able to make any money out of this as they have not done the research that revisionists have done. As for Phillipa Gregory I suggests she reads" Maligned King" and " Sunne in Splendour" before she publishes her latest "fairy tale".

Mary

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Oh dear God please dont let that happen!...! Dr Starkey clearly does not like Richard, why I do not know..! and Hicks and Weir have both made plenty of money out of maligning Richard...If this happens I do not know how I will contain my rage!...Eileen
>
>
> >
> > You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> > Hilary
> >
>

Hi Mary....The thought of anyone jumping on the bandwagon with the discovery of Richard's remains and to use it to further attack and vilify...I just cannot get my head around it..Have they no respect!! .It makes me feel sad/dismayed and angry at the same time.

Gregory's books are what they are...meant for 15 year olds. Some chapters as short as two pages...Compare it to say Sunne in Splendour or Under the Hog...its like comparing hamburger with steak! I for one am bitterly ashamed I went so far as to buy this wretched book...the Anne Neville one. I doubt if anyone on this forum will be buying any of Gregory's books. We must vote with our feet...

Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
>
> Starkey, Hicks, Weir and co have been very quiet so far, I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback. The Society needs to be ready to refute all myths. The good thing is Philippa, John and Annette are involved and they are working with Channel 4, so their version will be out there before the traditionalists can get going. They should not be able to make any money out of this as they have not done the research that revisionists have done. As for Phillipa Gregory I suggests she reads" Maligned King" and " Sunne in Splendour" before she publishes her latest "fairy tale".
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Oh dear God please dont let that happen!...! Dr Starkey clearly does not like Richard, why I do not know..! and Hicks and Weir have both made plenty of money out of maligning Richard...If this happens I do not know how I will contain my rage!...Eileen
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> > > Hilary
> > >
> >
>

Mary said




I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.
 
Liz replied:  The Society need to make sure they get a specialist to explain the difference and point out that Hicks, Weir, Starkey don't have medical degrees (and Weir doesn't have a History degree either, she said nastily ....)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

> 
>Liz replied:  The Society need to make sure they get a specialist to
>explain the difference and point out that Hicks, Weir, Starkey don't
>have medical degrees (and Weir doesn't have a History degree either,
>she said nastily ....)

Hi Liz

For yourself or anyone who hasn't seen the Society's earlier Press
Release about scoliosis, please see below.

The Society are doing all they can by a series of Press Releases to
ensure that Richard's reputation as 'Good King Richard' reaches as many
people as possible. There are more PRs in the pipeline for later this
month, I believe.

cheers

Jac


*************************


RICHARD III SOCIETY
Patron HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 30 October 2012
DISABILITY IS NOT A DEFORMITY
" Greyfriars dig raises questions over Richard III's hunchback'
appearance
" Richard III Society calls for reassessment of lazy hunchback myth'
" What is the difference between scoliocis and kyphosis?
It is time to end the lazy acquiescence with the Tudor and Shakespearean
myths about Richard III. If the body
found at the Greyfriars dig is Richard III, it proves he was no
hunchback and if he suffered from scoliosis that is
no reason to denigrate him. In this Paralympic year, we celebrate the
achievements of all who overcome
disabilities, let's do the same for Richard III&
On 12 September at a press conference in Leicester's Guildhall,
Richard Taylor of the University of Leicester outlined the
evidence that points to the skeleton discovered on the site of the
Greyfriars being that of King Richard III. He also
confirmed that it had a curvature of the spine known as scoliosis.
Scoliosis is a fixed and abnormal sideways curvature of the thoracic and
lumbar regions of the spine. It can result in one
shoulder being slightly higher than the other, in the case of the
Greyfriars skeleton, the right shoulder.
The press conference also made absolutely clear that the skeleton did
not have kyphosis, which can result in a hunchback.
So if this is Richard III, he was not a hunchback, contrary to the myths
about his physical appearance.
Nowadays severe scoliosis can be corrected by surgery, although those
with the condition still face challenges in their lives.
The Scoliosis Society notes that some are inspired by older siblings to
overcome such challenges; Richard may well have
been similarly inspired by his charismatic elder brother Edward IV. As
duke of Gloucester and king Richard led an active
life as an effective administrative and military commander, if he had a
disability he clearly overcame it.
However there is no contemporary evidence that Richard III suffered from
any visible physical problems. The only
surviving description of the king is provided by a Silesian visitor,
Nicholas van Poppelau, who spent time at Richard's court
in 1484. He described the king as lean, with delicate arms and legs and
that he was three fingers taller' than Poppelau
himself.
The legend of Richard's hunchback began in the early days of the new
Tudor dynasty when it was expedient to denigrate the
reputation of the dead king; to contemporaries, a deformed body was
easily associated with an evil mind. This reached its
climax with Sir Thomas More, who described Richard as being little of
stature, ill-featured of limbs, crook backed &'.
Tudor chroniclers repeated the legend and provided the basis for
Shakespeare's portrayal of a king who is determined to
prove a villain'. It was all character assassination and historical
spin'.

I just ran into a discussion board where snotty flawed logic was being used to "prove" that if the skeleton has scoliosis, it means that all the chroniclers who got it "right" that Richard was a hunchback/crookback are therefore also right about his murdering the princes and all the other crimes laid at his feet.

I can't help but recall a line from an ancient Goon Show: "I'm not saying you're insane, only that you leave your premises immediately."

If all someone can see is what they've seen before, they're going to miss out on a lot of possibilities in life. So sad, too bad, their loss.

~Weds


> Mary wrote:
>
> I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.

What is the. Forum? I am going to cut and paste the press release from Riii society! I am despairing that Richard's reputation can never be put straight!


Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Jan 4, 2013, at 7:01 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> I just ran into a discussion board where snotty flawed logic was being used to "prove" that if the skeleton has scoliosis, it means that all the chroniclers who got it "right" that Richard was a hunchback/crookback are therefore also right about his murdering the princes and all the other crimes laid at his feet.
>
> I can't help but recall a line from an ancient Goon Show: "I'm not saying you're insane, only that you leave your premises immediately."
>
> If all someone can see is what they've seen before, they're going to miss out on a lot of possibilities in life. So sad, too bad, their loss.
>
> ~Weds
>
> > Mary wrote:
> >
> > I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.
>
>

It's here, Ishita:

http://www.historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/51140-richard-iii-did-have-hunchback-spine-7.html

Be careful tilting at their clawed windmills, m'kay?

~Weds

--- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:
>
> What is the. Forum? I am going to cut and paste the press release from Riii society! I am despairing that Richard's reputation can never be put straight!
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 4, 2013, at 7:01 PM, "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> > I just ran into a discussion board where snotty flawed logic was being used to "prove" that if the skeleton has scoliosis, it means that all the chroniclers who got it "right" that Richard was a hunchback/crookback are therefore also right about his murdering the princes and all the other crimes laid at his feet.
> >
> > I can't help but recall a line from an ancient Goon Show: "I'm not saying you're insane, only that you leave your premises immediately."
> >
> > If all someone can see is what they've seen before, they're going to miss out on a lot of possibilities in life. So sad, too bad, their loss.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > > Mary wrote:
> > >
> > > I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Haha!

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4, 2013, at 8:20 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> It's here, Ishita:
>
> http://www.historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/51140-richard-iii-did-have-hunchback-spine-7.html
>
> Be careful tilting at their clawed windmills, m'kay?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:
> >
> > What is the. Forum? I am going to cut and paste the press release from Riii society! I am despairing that Richard's reputation can never be put straight!
> >
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 4, 2013, at 7:01 PM, "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > > I just ran into a discussion board where snotty flawed logic was being used to "prove" that if the skeleton has scoliosis, it means that all the chroniclers who got it "right" that Richard was a hunchback/crookback are therefore also right about his murdering the princes and all the other crimes laid at his feet.
> > >
> > > I can't help but recall a line from an ancient Goon Show: "I'm not saying you're insane, only that you leave your premises immediately."
> > >
> > > If all someone can see is what they've seen before, they're going to miss out on a lot of possibilities in life. So sad, too bad, their loss.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > > Mary wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

When the find in Leicester was first announced, the Sydney Morning Herald (our reputable broadsheet) indicated that the scoliosis proved that Richard was a hunchback.  I sent them an email saying that the press conference explicitly stated that this was not the case and they printed my letter the next day.  I'm afraid though that this won't be an isolated incident.

Cheers, Dorothea



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Selling Richard


 
I just ran into a discussion board where snotty flawed logic was being used to "prove" that if the skeleton has scoliosis, it means that all the chroniclers who got it "right" that Richard was a hunchback/crookback are therefore also right about his murdering the princes and all the other crimes laid at his feet.

I can't help but recall a line from an ancient Goon Show: "I'm not saying you're insane, only that you leave your premises immediately."

If all someone can see is what they've seen before, they're going to miss out on a lot of possibilities in life. So sad, too bad, their loss.

~Weds

> Mary wrote:
>
> I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.

Stupid and ignorant question: who was the Croyland chronicler? After reading The atrial of Blood it seems many people were writing and editing it!

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4, 2013, at 8:43 PM, Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:

> When the find in Leicester was first announced, the Sydney Morning Herald (our reputable broadsheet) indicated that the scoliosis proved that Richard was a hunchback. I sent them an email saying that the press conference explicitly stated that this was not the case and they printed my letter the next day. I'm afraid though that this won't be an isolated incident.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013 11:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
>
> I just ran into a discussion board where snotty flawed logic was being used to "prove" that if the skeleton has scoliosis, it means that all the chroniclers who got it "right" that Richard was a hunchback/crookback are therefore also right about his murdering the princes and all the other crimes laid at his feet.
>
> I can't help but recall a line from an ancient Goon Show: "I'm not saying you're insane, only that you leave your premises immediately."
>
> If all someone can see is what they've seen before, they're going to miss out on a lot of possibilities in life. So sad, too bad, their loss.
>
> ~Weds
>
> > Mary wrote:
> >
> > I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.
>
>
>
>

Not stupid.  Nobody actually is sure who he was.

Dorothea




________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard


 
Stupid and ignorant question: who was the Croyland chronicler? After reading The atrial of Blood it seems many people were writing and editing it!

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4, 2013, at 8:43 PM, Dorothea Preis dorotheapreis@...> wrote:

> When the find in Leicester was first announced, the Sydney Morning Herald (our reputable broadsheet) indicated that the scoliosis proved that Richard was a hunchback. I sent them an email saying that the press conference explicitly stated that this was not the case and they printed my letter the next day. I'm afraid though that this won't be an isolated incident.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013 11:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
>
> I just ran into a discussion board where snotty flawed logic was being used to "prove" that if the skeleton has scoliosis, it means that all the chroniclers who got it "right" that Richard was a hunchback/crookback are therefore also right about his murdering the princes and all the other crimes laid at his feet.
>
> I can't help but recall a line from an ancient Goon Show: "I'm not saying you're insane, only that you leave your premises immediately."
>
> If all someone can see is what they've seen before, they're going to miss out on a lot of possibilities in life. So sad, too bad, their loss.
>
> ~Weds
>
> > Mary wrote:
> >
> > I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.
>
>
>
>

Perhaps some of us should join - it's quite a good site, generally, with a wide range of historical discussion.   There are a number of threads about Richard, with some interesting points made, both for and against.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>


 
It's here, Ishita:

http://www.historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/51140-richard-iii-did-have-hunchback-spine-7.html

Be careful tilting at their clawed windmills, m'kay?

~Weds

--- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:
>
> What is the. Forum? I am going to cut and paste the press release from Riii society! I am despairing that Richard's reputation can never be put straight!
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 4, 2013, at 7:01 PM, "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> > I just ran into a discussion board where snotty flawed logic was being used to "prove" that if the skeleton has scoliosis, it means that all the chroniclers who got it "right" that Richard was a hunchback/crookback are therefore also right about his murdering the princes and all the other crimes laid at his feet.
> >
> > I can't help but recall a line from an ancient Goon Show: "I'm not saying you're insane, only that you leave your premises immediately."
> >
> > If all someone can see is what they've seen before, they're going to miss out on a lot of possibilities in life. So sad, too bad, their loss.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > > Mary wrote:
> > >
> > > I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

A few years ago I proposed the Society actively look for a "face" to deal with press and media, someone with a big public profile, a movie star for example. Instead we only ever see the greybeards, who will not encourage young people to join up and fight the fight. Phil Stone, bless him, looks like Santa Claus, but as we aren't asking tiny tots to join up and sit on his lap, that isn't the answer. My idea was dismissed.
We need someone with 'nouse' to speak up for Richard and encourage younger people to join and fight, or else there will be no next generation to fight for the king and spread the word.
When the Society is asked to appear in discussion about the find, I do want to see someone young and energetic appear, not the older generation. People would sit up and pay attention if sayJustin Bieber, a member of One Direction, Emily Blunt, or 'Bilbo" Martin Freeman, spoke up for the king!
There has to be someone like that out there.
A few years ago I would have suggested Yorkshire actor Sean Bean who is a known supporter of our ideals, but his LOTR is 13 years ago now.
Even though he makes a great dwarf, the much loved [by some ladies] Richard Armitage would also be seen as middle aged!
I mean someone who can reach out and touch the teenagers and 20 somethings, the next generation.
Schama wrote a book about the French Revolution that relied on the traditional accounts, and viewed it all as villains or heroes, which it was not. He also totally ignored the WOTR in his History of Britain series. He too is 'mature'.
There is one historian who has the charisma and looks of the young Michael Woods, but his area is ancient Greece, Dr Michael Scott. His film on Delphi was one of the best of recent years.
But the Society needs to get moving on this. But I feel egos may get in the way and the opportunity to appear on tv will get the better of the powers that are, and another opportunity to look to the future will disappear.
Paul


On 4 Jan 2013, at 16:32, liz williams wrote:

> Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood".
>
>
> Liz: He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they should just try and get him? Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality. I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks? I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
>
> I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak. Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "
>
> but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Selling Richard
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
> Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.
>
> You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> Hilary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

These people who are hopping all over the scoliosis - what do they say about the withered arm? I believe it has already been stated that the rest of the remains are perfectly normal?

I, for one, have always believed that one of Richard's shoulders was raised. But I still believe that he was a fine King who has been maligned out of all proportion to who he really was. Maire.

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
>
>
> Perhaps some of us should join - it's quite a good site, generally, with a wide range of historical discussion.   There are a number of threads about Richard, with some interesting points made, both for and against.
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc
>
>
>  
> It's here, Ishita:
>
> http://www.historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/51140-richard-iii-did-have-hunchback-spine-7.html
>
> Be careful tilting at their clawed windmills, m'kay?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:
> >
> > What is the. Forum? I am going to cut and paste the press release from Riii society! I am despairing that Richard's reputation can never be put straight!
> >
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 4, 2013, at 7:01 PM, "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > > I just ran into a discussion board where snotty flawed logic was being used to "prove" that if the skeleton has scoliosis, it means that all the chroniclers who got it "right" that Richard was a hunchback/crookback are therefore also right about his murdering the princes and all the other crimes laid at his feet.
> > >
> > > I can't help but recall a line from an ancient Goon Show: "I'm not saying you're insane, only that you leave your premises immediately."
> > >
> > > If all someone can see is what they've seen before, they're going to miss out on a lot of possibilities in life. So sad, too bad, their loss.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > > Mary wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I hope that they are not going to try to use the scoliosis to try to say that the Tydder was right about him being a hunchback.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Paul, you're absolutely right. 

A teenage "heart throb" like the young fellow who played the male lead in that vampire trilogy? Elijah Wood or Dominic M. from LotR are still pretty young and considered "hot" around these parts. Howsabout "Wolverine"? He's no longer young, but he's still attractive to a youthful crowd. Or the handsome young guy in Anna Karenina? (Sadly, all the actors with whom I've some contact are getting too old...even "Baby Face" Cusack :-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: Selling Richard


 
A few years ago I proposed the Society actively look for a "face" to deal with press and media, someone with a big public profile, a movie star for example. Instead we only ever see the greybeards, who will not encourage young people to join up and fight the fight. Phil Stone, bless him, looks like Santa Claus, but as we aren't asking tiny tots to join up and sit on his lap, that isn't the answer. My idea was dismissed.
We need someone with 'nouse' to speak up for Richard and encourage younger people to join and fight, or else there will be no next generation to fight for the king and spread the word.
When the Society is asked to appear in discussion about the find, I do want to see someone young and energetic appear, not the older generation. People would sit up and pay attention if sayJustin Bieber, a member of One Direction, Emily Blunt, or 'Bilbo" Martin Freeman, spoke up for the king!
There has to be someone like that out there.
A few years ago I would have suggested Yorkshire actor Sean Bean who is a known supporter of our ideals, but his LOTR is 13 years ago now.
Even though he makes a great dwarf, the much loved [by some ladies] Richard Armitage would also be seen as middle aged!
I mean someone who can reach out and touch the teenagers and 20 somethings, the next generation.
Schama wrote a book about the French Revolution that relied on the traditional accounts, and viewed it all as villains or heroes, which it was not. He also totally ignored the WOTR in his History of Britain series. He too is 'mature'.
There is one historian who has the charisma and looks of the young Michael Woods, but his area is ancient Greece, Dr Michael Scott. His film on Delphi was one of the best of recent years.
But the Society needs to get moving on this. But I feel egos may get in the way and the opportunity to appear on tv will get the better of the powers that are, and another opportunity to look to the future will disappear.
Paul

On 4 Jan 2013, at 16:32, liz williams wrote:

> Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood".
>
>
> Liz: He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they should just try and get him? Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality. I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks? I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
>
> I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak. Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "
>
> but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat hjnatdat@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Selling Richard
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
> Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.
>
> You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> Hilary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Frankly I think the Society made a big mistake in dismissing your suggestion - it's exactly what they/we need.  The average Daily Mirror reader (not to specifically pinpoint them but I'm sure you see what I mean)  tends to think that those of us who have an big interest in history are a bit odd anyway and that we are all middle class, university educated, sandal wearing and in the case of the men, have beards!  Mary Beard is probably exactly how they envisage female historians as looking. 
 
Michael Scott is around 30 which is young but I certainly don't think it should be anyone younger!  I think Armitage would be really good - NOT just because I like him but because he is well known to the general public which Michael Scott isn't but we need someone with historical credentials as well (although lack of them hasn't stopped Alison Weir has it?).  The same applies to Sean Bean who has just gone up in my estimation.  Perhaps a combination of a well known and interested figure such as Armitage or Bean along with a historian who is youngish (and beardless) would do the trick. 
 
Incidentally Paul, Martin Freeman is only about two weeks  younger than Richard Armitage!
 
 
 
 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013, 10:53
Subject: Re: Selling Richard

 
A few years ago I proposed the Society actively look for a "face" to deal with press and media, someone with a big public profile, a movie star for example. Instead we only ever see the greybeards, who will not encourage young people to join up and fight the fight. Phil Stone, bless him, looks like Santa Claus, but as we aren't asking tiny tots to join up and sit on his lap, that isn't the answer. My idea was dismissed.
We need someone with 'nouse' to speak up for Richard and encourage younger people to join and fight, or else there will be no next generation to fight for the king and spread the word.
When the Society is asked to appear in discussion about the find, I do want to see someone young and energetic appear, not the older generation. People would sit up and pay attention if sayJustin Bieber, a member of One Direction, Emily Blunt, or 'Bilbo" Martin Freeman, spoke up for the king!
There has to be someone like that out there.
A few years ago I would have suggested Yorkshire actor Sean Bean who is a known supporter of our ideals, but his LOTR is 13 years ago now.
Even though he makes a great dwarf, the much loved [by some ladies] Richard Armitage would also be seen as middle aged!
I mean someone who can reach out and touch the teenagers and 20 somethings, the next generation.
Schama wrote a book about the French Revolution that relied on the traditional accounts, and viewed it all as villains or heroes, which it was not. He also totally ignored the WOTR in his History of Britain series. He too is 'mature'.
There is one historian who has the charisma and looks of the young Michael Woods, but his area is ancient Greece, Dr Michael Scott. His film on Delphi was one of the best of recent years.
But the Society needs to get moving on this. But I feel egos may get in the way and the opportunity to appear on tv will get the better of the powers that are, and another opportunity to look to the future will disappear.
Paul

On 4 Jan 2013, at 16:32, liz williams wrote:

> Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood".
>
>
> Liz: He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they should just try and get him? Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality. I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks? I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
>
> I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak. Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "
>
> but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Selling Richard
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
> Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.
>
> You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> Hilary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul, I totally agree, and commend you that you tried to get the Society on board with this.

I do think that getting Sean Bean or Richard Armitage on board would still be a huge plus though. From what I have read and know about Armitage, there would be little to do to convince him as he has wanted to do a revisionist drama about Richard for a long time now.
Although it tends to be publicised that women of certain ages are Armitage fans, the "youngsters" are very much keen on him too. I have a household of teenage Hobbit fans - boys and girls - ranging from 13-21 and they are very very keen on Armitage as Thorin (and knew him well from Spooks and Robin Hood prior to that), and the girls dote on him as teenagers just as much as their mothers might.

Similarly Sean Bean - huge numbers of late teens/early 20's admire Sean Bean not just from LotR but these days from his role as Ned Stark in Game of Thrones (where he plays a Richard of Gloucester figure amongst several deliberately created by George RR Martin). Discerning teens have just as much admiration for these two actors as older folk. Discerning fans of the GoT series wouldn't take much convincing about Richard either, I suspect.

All the best
Col

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> A few years ago I proposed the Society actively look for a "face" to deal with press and media, someone with a big public profile, a movie star for example. Instead we only ever see the greybeards, who will not encourage young people to join up and fight the fight. Phil Stone, bless him, looks like Santa Claus, but as we aren't asking tiny tots to join up and sit on his lap, that isn't the answer. My idea was dismissed.
> We need someone with 'nouse' to speak up for Richard and encourage younger people to join and fight, or else there will be no next generation to fight for the king and spread the word.
> When the Society is asked to appear in discussion about the find, I do want to see someone young and energetic appear, not the older generation. People would sit up and pay attention if sayJustin Bieber, a member of One Direction, Emily Blunt, or 'Bilbo" Martin Freeman, spoke up for the king!
> There has to be someone like that out there.
> A few years ago I would have suggested Yorkshire actor Sean Bean who is a known supporter of our ideals, but his LOTR is 13 years ago now.
> Even though he makes a great dwarf, the much loved [by some ladies] Richard Armitage would also be seen as middle aged!
> I mean someone who can reach out and touch the teenagers and 20 somethings, the next generation.
> Schama wrote a book about the French Revolution that relied on the traditional accounts, and viewed it all as villains or heroes, which it was not. He also totally ignored the WOTR in his History of Britain series. He too is 'mature'.
> There is one historian who has the charisma and looks of the young Michael Woods, but his area is ancient Greece, Dr Michael Scott. His film on Delphi was one of the best of recent years.
> But the Society needs to get moving on this. But I feel egos may get in the way and the opportunity to appear on tv will get the better of the powers that are, and another opportunity to look to the future will disappear.
> Paul

And I am sure Armitage would do it gladly!


Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Jan 5, 2013, at 9:08 AM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Frankly I think the Society made a big mistake in dismissing your suggestion - it's exactly what they/we need. The average Daily Mirror reader (not to specifically pinpoint them but I'm sure you see what I mean) tends to think that those of us who have an big interest in history are a bit odd anyway and that we are all middle class, university educated, sandal wearing and in the case of the men, have beards! Mary Beard is probably exactly how they envisage female historians as looking.
>
> Michael Scott is around 30 which is young but I certainly don't think it should be anyone younger! I think Armitage would be really good - NOT just because I like him but because he is well known to the general public which Michael Scott isn't but we need someone with historical credentials as well (although lack of them hasn't stopped Alison Weir has it?). The same applies to Sean Bean who has just gone up in my estimation. Perhaps a combination of a well known and interested figure such as Armitage or Bean along with a historian who is youngish (and beardless) would do the trick.
>
> Incidentally Paul, Martin Freeman is only about two weeks younger than Richard Armitage!
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013, 10:53
> Subject: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
> A few years ago I proposed the Society actively look for a "face" to deal with press and media, someone with a big public profile, a movie star for example. Instead we only ever see the greybeards, who will not encourage young people to join up and fight the fight. Phil Stone, bless him, looks like Santa Claus, but as we aren't asking tiny tots to join up and sit on his lap, that isn't the answer. My idea was dismissed.
> We need someone with 'nouse' to speak up for Richard and encourage younger people to join and fight, or else there will be no next generation to fight for the king and spread the word.
> When the Society is asked to appear in discussion about the find, I do want to see someone young and energetic appear, not the older generation. People would sit up and pay attention if sayJustin Bieber, a member of One Direction, Emily Blunt, or 'Bilbo" Martin Freeman, spoke up for the king!
> There has to be someone like that out there.
> A few years ago I would have suggested Yorkshire actor Sean Bean who is a known supporter of our ideals, but his LOTR is 13 years ago now.
> Even though he makes a great dwarf, the much loved [by some ladies] Richard Armitage would also be seen as middle aged!
> I mean someone who can reach out and touch the teenagers and 20 somethings, the next generation.
> Schama wrote a book about the French Revolution that relied on the traditional accounts, and viewed it all as villains or heroes, which it was not. He also totally ignored the WOTR in his History of Britain series. He too is 'mature'.
> There is one historian who has the charisma and looks of the young Michael Woods, but his area is ancient Greece, Dr Michael Scott. His film on Delphi was one of the best of recent years.
> But the Society needs to get moving on this. But I feel egos may get in the way and the opportunity to appear on tv will get the better of the powers that are, and another opportunity to look to the future will disappear.
> Paul
>
> On 4 Jan 2013, at 16:32, liz williams wrote:
>
> > Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood".
> >
> >
> > Liz: He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they should just try and get him? Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality. I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks? I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
> >
> > I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak. Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "
> >
> > but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
> > Subject: Selling Richard
> >
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
> > Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.
> >
> > You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Stupid and ignorant question: who was the Croyland chronicler?


Katy says:

Not a stupid or ignorant question. We don't know who he was. There are several suspects, but no one has been settled upon.

Katy

I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.

--- In , "oregon_katy" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Stupid and ignorant question: who was the Croyland chronicler?
>
>
> Katy says:
>
> Not a stupid or ignorant question. We don't know who he was. There are several suspects, but no one has been settled upon.
>
> Katy
>

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.


Katy:

I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)

Katy

Lolol!
I bought the DVD Middleham castle.... The commentator keeps saying Midd-leham castle. Whereas I have been saying Middle-ham castle!!!!! Which one is true?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Jan 5, 2013, at 10:35 PM, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.
>
> Katy:
>
> I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)
>
> Katy
>
>

In early English, the letters  "u," "v," "w," and "y" seem to have been used almost interchangeably. For example, one signature of Francis Lovell reads as "Lowell" (which was also the recorded spelling of the London inn he owned); perhaps his Dog symbol was a play upon "loyal," sometimes spelled "loyell" (?)

But as to how these letters were pronounced...? Your question is, in fact, a good one.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Selling Richard


 


--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.

Katy:

I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)

Katy

And I think it would be an ego trip for him as much as the greybeards.
Paul

On 5 Jan 2013, at 18:25, Richard Yahoo wrote:

> And I am sure Armitage would do it gladly!
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 5, 2013, at 9:08 AM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>> Frankly I think the Society made a big mistake in dismissing your suggestion - it's exactly what they/we need. The average Daily Mirror reader (not to specifically pinpoint them but I'm sure you see what I mean) tends to think that those of us who have an big interest in history are a bit odd anyway and that we are all middle class, university educated, sandal wearing and in the case of the men, have beards! Mary Beard is probably exactly how they envisage female historians as looking.
>>
>> Michael Scott is around 30 which is young but I certainly don't think it should be anyone younger! I think Armitage would be really good - NOT just because I like him but because he is well known to the general public which Michael Scott isn't but we need someone with historical credentials as well (although lack of them hasn't stopped Alison Weir has it?). The same applies to Sean Bean who has just gone up in my estimation. Perhaps a combination of a well known and interested figure such as Armitage or Bean along with a historian who is youngish (and beardless) would do the trick.
>>
>> Incidentally Paul, Martin Freeman is only about two weeks younger than Richard Armitage!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013, 10:53
>> Subject: Re: Selling Richard
>>
>>
>> A few years ago I proposed the Society actively look for a "face" to deal with press and media, someone with a big public profile, a movie star for example. Instead we only ever see the greybeards, who will not encourage young people to join up and fight the fight. Phil Stone, bless him, looks like Santa Claus, but as we aren't asking tiny tots to join up and sit on his lap, that isn't the answer. My idea was dismissed.
>> We need someone with 'nouse' to speak up for Richard and encourage younger people to join and fight, or else there will be no next generation to fight for the king and spread the word.
>> When the Society is asked to appear in discussion about the find, I do want to see someone young and energetic appear, not the older generation. People would sit up and pay attention if sayJustin Bieber, a member of One Direction, Emily Blunt, or 'Bilbo" Martin Freeman, spoke up for the king!
>> There has to be someone like that out there.
>> A few years ago I would have suggested Yorkshire actor Sean Bean who is a known supporter of our ideals, but his LOTR is 13 years ago now.
>> Even though he makes a great dwarf, the much loved [by some ladies] Richard Armitage would also be seen as middle aged!
>> I mean someone who can reach out and touch the teenagers and 20 somethings, the next generation.
>> Schama wrote a book about the French Revolution that relied on the traditional accounts, and viewed it all as villains or heroes, which it was not. He also totally ignored the WOTR in his History of Britain series. He too is 'mature'.
>> There is one historian who has the charisma and looks of the young Michael Woods, but his area is ancient Greece, Dr Michael Scott. His film on Delphi was one of the best of recent years.
>> But the Society needs to get moving on this. But I feel egos may get in the way and the opportunity to appear on tv will get the better of the powers that are, and another opportunity to look to the future will disappear.
>> Paul
>>
>> On 4 Jan 2013, at 16:32, liz williams wrote:
>>
>>> Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood".
>>>
>>>
>>> Liz: He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they should just try and get him? Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality. I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks? I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
>>>
>>> I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak. Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "
>>>
>>> but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
>>> Subject: Selling Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
>>> Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.
>>>
>>> You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
>>> Hilary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?
 
Liz


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 3:35
Subject: Re: Selling Richard

 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.

Katy:

I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)

Katy

a pasty is worn on the breast to cover the nipples. Maire.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 3:35
> Subject: Re: Selling Richard
>
>  
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.
>
> Katy:
>
> I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>

I would suggest in the interests of historical reenactment, that you visit your local strip club and ask! I could describe their use however, some things are beyond description.
Alternatively you do have access to both the Internet and a computer I would suggest Google
G

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:03 AM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 3:35
> Subject: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.
>
> Katy:
>
> I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>

Oh, like nipple tassels. 
 
You learn something new every day!


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 14:11
Subject: Re: Selling Richard

 
a pasty is worn on the breast to cover the nipples. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 3:35
> Subject: Re: Selling Richard
>
>  
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.
>
> Katy:
>
> I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>

You guys are hilarious!! Can we say nipple in public?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:28 AM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:

> I would suggest in the interests of historical reenactment, that you visit your local strip club and ask! I could describe their use however, some things are beyond description.
> Alternatively you do have access to both the Internet and a computer I would suggest Google
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:03 AM, liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 3:35
> > Subject: Re: Selling Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.
> >
> > Katy:
> >
> > I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?


Katy:

In some times and places, nudity on stage is illegal. Pasties on strippers is a ploy to get around that ban -- a woman isn't nude, presumably, if she has nipple-like coverings over her actual nipples. A little device called a merkin (google that for yourself) serves the same function down lower.

Katy

You can in my house!
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard

 
You guys are hilarious!! Can we say nipple in public?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:28 AM, George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> I would suggest in the interests of historical reenactment, that you visit your local strip club and ask! I could describe their use however, some things are beyond description.
> Alternatively you do have access to both the Internet and a computer I would suggest Google
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:03 AM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 3:35
> > Subject: Re: Selling Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.
> >
> > Katy:
> >
> > I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Oh I know what a merkin is (through my interest in Russian history I hasten to add, apparently Tsarina Alexandra used them)
 
Liz


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 17:25
Subject: Re: Selling Richard

 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?

Katy:

In some times and places, nudity on stage is illegal. Pasties on strippers is a ploy to get around that ban -- a woman isn't nude, presumably, if she has nipple-like coverings over her actual nipples. A little device called a merkin (google that for yourself) serves the same function down lower.

Katy

Hi, Liz -



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard



You wrote 

Oh I know what a merkin is (through my interest in Russian history I hasten to add, apparently Tsarina Alexandra used them)

Liz



[JLT] And thereby hangs a tale! (Or maybe it should read tail? Big LOL)



Johanne

__

A tv interviewer said 'bitch' while interviewing Tom Cruise the other night [or rather simply worshipping him} Tom fell off the sofa! "Can you say that here?" he screamed.
Yes Tom, and a lot worse, like why are you a stupid Scientologist? :-)
Paul

On 6 Jan 2013, at 17:31, liz williams wrote:

> You can in my house!
>
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 16:30
> Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
> You guys are hilarious!! Can we say nipple in public?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:28 AM, George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I would suggest in the interests of historical reenactment, that you visit your local strip club and ask! I could describe their use however, some things are beyond description.
>> Alternatively you do have access to both the Internet and a computer I would suggest Google
>> G
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:03 AM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?
>>>
>>> Liz
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: oregon_katy mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 3:35
>>> Subject: Re: Selling Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.
>>>
>>> Katy:
>>>
>>> I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)
>>>
>>> Katy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Why not!
Do you not have them?
Most people on this site are both adult and able to cope with grown up words like nipples without sniggering however we do have a problem with Shakespeare
G


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 6, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> You guys are hilarious!! Can we say nipple in public?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:28 AM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > I would suggest in the interests of historical reenactment, that you visit your local strip club and ask! I could describe their use however, some things are beyond description.
> > Alternatively you do have access to both the Internet and a computer I would suggest Google
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:03 AM, liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Showing my ignorance - what's a pay-stie and where do strippers wear them?
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 3:35
> > > Subject: Re: Selling Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow or Croy? Maire.
> > >
> > > Katy:
> > >
> > > I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

...and, like..."why do producers keep casting you when all your movies bomb now?"

D'you think the Society might sponsor a mock debate between actors/scholars playing Henry VII and Richard, and ask them the really hard questions?

~Weds

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> A tv interviewer said 'bitch' while interviewing Tom Cruise the other night [or rather simply worshipping him} Tom fell off the sofa! "Can you say that here?" he screamed.
> Yes Tom, and a lot worse, like why are you a stupid Scientologist? :-)
> Paul

The first one. The [-ham] ending on English placenames isn't stressed. It is
in some other English speaking countries, like the USA, but not in England.

Karen

From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 23:17:09 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard






Lolol!
I bought the DVD Middleham castle.... The commentator keeps saying
Midd-leham castle. Whereas I have been saying Middle-ham castle!!!!! Which
one is true?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Jan 5, 2013, at 10:35 PM, "oregon_katy" oregon_katy@...
<mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow
or Croy? Maire.
>
> Katy:
>
> I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered
that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those delicious
meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)
>
> Katy
>
>

Which is the earlier spelling and which the older? That's often a clue, as
spelling became more regularised with the coming of the printing press. It
isn't always foolproof, though, as spelling sometimes influences
pronunciation, which then reinforces what might have been an odd or
idiosyncratic spelling choice in the first place.

I'm not sure [y] belongs in your list, Judy, but the other three were often
interchangeable. [y] seems to be more associated with modern [I].

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:52:59 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard






In early English, the letters "u," "v," "w," and "y" seem to have been used
almost interchangeably. For example, one signature of Francis Lovell reads
as "Lowell" (which was also the recorded spelling of the London inn he
owned); perhaps his Dog symbol was a play upon "loyal," sometimes spelled
"loyell" (?)

But as to how these letters were pronounced...? Your question is, in fact, a
good one.

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Selling Richard




--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "mairemulholland"
wrote:
>
> I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow
or Croy? Maire.

Katy:

I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered
that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those
delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)

Katy

There's an excellent book 'Spell it Out - The Singular Story of English Spelling' by David Crystal which sets out the historical development of spelling from the time of the Anglo-Saxons to the modern day.  He discusses the eventual rationalisation of the use of 'v', 'y', 'w' and 'u'.  His text is informative, and extremely detailed.  I recently acquired this book and am thoroughly enjoying it.


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 6:54
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard


 
Which is the earlier spelling and which the older? That's often a clue, as
spelling became more regularised with the coming of the printing press. It
isn't always foolproof, though, as spelling sometimes influences
pronunciation, which then reinforces what might have been an odd or
idiosyncratic spelling choice in the first place.

I'm not sure [y] belongs in your list, Judy, but the other three were often
interchangeable. [y] seems to be more associated with modern [I].

Karen

From: Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:52:59 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard

In early English, the letters "u," "v," "w," and "y" seem to have been used
almost interchangeably. For example, one signature of Francis Lovell reads
as "Lowell" (which was also the recorded spelling of the London inn he
owned); perhaps his Dog symbol was a play upon "loyal," sometimes spelled
"loyell" (?)

But as to how these letters were pronounced...? Your question is, in fact, a
good one.

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@... >
To:

Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Selling Richard


--- In
, "mairemulholland"
wrote:
>
> I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow
or Croy? Maire.

Katy:

I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered
that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those
delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)

Katy

Pretty much anything by David Crystal is worth reading. He has a rare gift,
he engages the interest of his fellow linguists without confusing everyday
readers. If you find a book by Crystal lying around, pick it up and take it
home!

Karen

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:34:16 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard






There's an excellent book 'Spell it Out - The Singular Story of English
Spelling' by David Crystal which sets out the historical development of
spelling from the time of the Anglo-Saxons to the modern day. He discusses
the eventual rationalisation of the use of 'v', 'y', 'w' and 'u'. His text
is informative, and extremely detailed. I recently acquired this book and
am thoroughly enjoying it.

________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 6:54
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard



Which is the earlier spelling and which the older? That's often a clue, as
spelling became more regularised with the coming of the printing press. It
isn't always foolproof, though, as spelling sometimes influences
pronunciation, which then reinforces what might have been an odd or
idiosyncratic spelling choice in the first place.

I'm not sure [y] belongs in your list, Judy, but the other three were often
interchangeable. [y] seems to be more associated with modern [I].

Karen

From: Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@...
<mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:52:59 -0800 (PST)
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard

In early English, the letters "u," "v," "w," and "y" seem to have been used
almost interchangeably. For example, one signature of Francis Lovell reads
as "Lowell" (which was also the recorded spelling of the London inn he
owned); perhaps his Dog symbol was a play upon "loyal," sometimes spelled
"loyell" (?)

But as to how these letters were pronounced...? Your question is, in fact, a
good one.

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Selling Richard

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "mairemulholland"
wrote:
>
> I have a real stupid and ignorant question: how is Croyland pronounced? Crow
or Croy? Maire.

Katy:

I'm not the one to ask. When I was in Britain a few years ago I discovered
that I don't speak British, I speak American. (I did know that those
delicious meat pies are pass-ties. Pay-sties are what strippers wear.)

Katy

Paul

Just 'come back' and haven't read all the threads so I do apologise if I'm asking what others have. I was really quite nervous about launching this topic; I thought you'd all tear me to bits.

But the Richard story, like it or not, has always been about PR and if we miss out this time then I fear the chance will never come round again. It worries me that if you search the web there are already headlines saying R DID have have a hunchback because of the socoliosis - clearly there was a lot of selective deafness at the Press Conference.

And human nature is that we love a villain - going right back to Shakespeare. That's where the money is, so I don't think Starkey or Hicks or Weir will change their spots. It's the old thing about 'academics' thinking that marketing/PR is a bit crude. But a few, lovely though they are, adverts in History Magazine won't reach the masses or the younger generation.

Is there any way of influencing the Society, or dare I say, the Foundation? Hilary

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> A few years ago I proposed the Society actively look for a "face" to deal with press and media, someone with a big public profile, a movie star for example. Instead we only ever see the greybeards, who will not encourage young people to join up and fight the fight. Phil Stone, bless him, looks like Santa Claus, but as we aren't asking tiny tots to join up and sit on his lap, that isn't the answer. My idea was dismissed.
> We need someone with 'nouse' to speak up for Richard and encourage younger people to join and fight, or else there will be no next generation to fight for the king and spread the word.
> When the Society is asked to appear in discussion about the find, I do want to see someone young and energetic appear, not the older generation. People would sit up and pay attention if sayJustin Bieber, a member of One Direction, Emily Blunt, or 'Bilbo" Martin Freeman, spoke up for the king!
> There has to be someone like that out there.
> A few years ago I would have suggested Yorkshire actor Sean Bean who is a known supporter of our ideals, but his LOTR is 13 years ago now.
> Even though he makes a great dwarf, the much loved [by some ladies] Richard Armitage would also be seen as middle aged!
> I mean someone who can reach out and touch the teenagers and 20 somethings, the next generation.
> Schama wrote a book about the French Revolution that relied on the traditional accounts, and viewed it all as villains or heroes, which it was not. He also totally ignored the WOTR in his History of Britain series. He too is 'mature'.
> There is one historian who has the charisma and looks of the young Michael Woods, but his area is ancient Greece, Dr Michael Scott. His film on Delphi was one of the best of recent years.
> But the Society needs to get moving on this. But I feel egos may get in the way and the opportunity to appear on tv will get the better of the powers that are, and another opportunity to look to the future will disappear.
> Paul
>
>
> On 4 Jan 2013, at 16:32, liz williams wrote:
>
> > Hilary said "someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood".
> >
> >
> > Liz: He's still got plenty of charisma :-) and I think he's more pro than anti so maybe they should just try and get him? Bettany Hughes is also very good although the ancient world is her speciality. I also wonder what Simon Schama thinks? I appreciate none of them is "young" but I think if a well known historian came down publicly on our side, it would help a lot.
> >
> > I do however think you are right; the Society needs to get its big guns ready so to speak. Weir's website says "Alison eagerly awaits the outcome of the DNA tests, but feels there is no point in commenting further at this stage. "
> >
> > but I am sure that neither she nor Starkey (and probably not Hicks) will change their stance.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: hjnatdat
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 4 January 2013, 16:14
> > Subject: Selling Richard
> >
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thinking of PG, it can only be a few weeks before the identity of the Greyfriars skeleton is revealed. Whether it's him or not, it's going to throw R into a limelight he hasn't had for years.
> > Does anyone know whether the Society is grooming some young historian to fight his corner in the Media - you know, a sort of Brian Cox of history or someone with the charisma of the young Michael Wood? I know there are a lot of 'experts' they can call on but unfortunately they tend to be, like I guess most of us, of a 'certain age'. We desperately need a younger champion and a younger generation to pick up the torch, especially when the WOTR are now no longer on the syallabus of most state schools.
> >
> > You see I have the feeling that it will all be dealt with in a very gentlemanly manner and then Dr Starkey will pop up and deliver his 'three brutal brothers' lecture, with incisive inputs from Hicks and Weir, who must also be longing for their moment in the limelight as well. Are R's defenders and the Society ready for that?
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> The first one. The [-ham] ending on English placenames isn't stressed. It is in some other English speaking countries, like the USA, but not in England.

Carol responds:

I thought that it was pronounced MIDlum (compare Bedlam/BEDlum for Bethlehem and GLOSter for Gloucester. I won't even attempt a pronunciation for Worcestershire. The British tend to suppress middle syllables as far as I can determine.

Carol

Ah, good ole Wous-ta-sher... :-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Selling Richard


 
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> The first one. The [-ham] ending on English placenames isn't stressed. It is in some other English speaking countries, like the USA, but not in England.

Carol responds:

I thought that it was pronounced MIDlum (compare Bedlam/BEDlum for Bethlehem and GLOSter for Gloucester. I won't even attempt a pronunciation for Worcestershire. The British tend to suppress middle syllables as far as I can determine.

Carol

Carol said

I won't even attempt a pronunciation for Worcestershire.
 
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Liz:
 
Woostershire - it's easy!  Let's not forget Leominster (Lemster) or  Dorchester (okay that really is Dorchester - trick one).
 
I'd say Middle-um but I'm not from Yorkshire.  You definitely don't emphasise the "ham" bit.
 
There's a village near where I grew up which is called Uttoxeter but apparently some people round there call it "Utchiter" which mystifies even the British.


________________________________
.

Cleobury is Clibbury.

Anne





To:
From: ferrymansdaughter@...
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 19:51:23 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard





Carol said

I won't even attempt a pronunciation for Worcestershire.

__________________________________________________________

Liz:

Woostershire - it's easy! Let's not forget Leominster (Lemster) or Dorchester (okay that really is Dorchester - trick one).

I'd say Middle-um but I'm not from Yorkshire. You definitely don't emphasise the "ham" bit.

There's a village near where I grew up which is called Uttoxeter but apparently some people round there call it "Utchiter" which mystifies even the British.

________________________________
.

I'd have said Wustershure to be clear.

I'm trying to remember how my Grandfather (who was from that county) would have said it: possibly Wurrstershurr.


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 7 January 2013, 19:51
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard


 
Carol said

I won't even attempt a pronunciation for Worcestershire.
 
__________________________________________________________
 
Liz:
 
Woostershire - it's easy!  Let's not forget Leominster (Lemster) or  Dorchester (okay that really is Dorchester - trick one).
 
I'd say Middle-um but I'm not from Yorkshire.  You definitely don't emphasise the "ham" bit.
 
There's a village near where I grew up which is called Uttoxeter but apparently some people round there call it "Utchiter" which mystifies even the British.

________________________________
.

What about Bosham were King Canute daughter is buried ...Bozem !

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 7, 2013, at 4:46 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

> I'd have said Wustershure to be clear.
>
> I'm trying to remember how my Grandfather (who was from that county) would have said it: possibly Wurrstershurr.
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Monday, 7 January 2013, 19:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
>
> Carol said
>
> I won't even attempt a pronunciation for Worcestershire.
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Liz:
>
> Woostershire - it's easy! Let's not forget Leominster (Lemster) or Dorchester (okay that really is Dorchester - trick one).
>
> I'd say Middle-um but I'm not from Yorkshire. You definitely don't emphasise the "ham" bit.
>
> There's a village near where I grew up which is called Uttoxeter but apparently some people round there call it "Utchiter" which mystifies even the British.
>
> ________________________________
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

Whether it's [middelum] or [midlum] depends on who's talking. My husband, a
Londoner, would say the former, not the latter. What's certain is that it
won't be [midel-'ham].

And [woostershire]. There are anomalies in the [gloster/leister] pattern,
such as Colchester and Cirencester.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:33:27 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Selling Richard






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> The first one. The [-ham] ending on English placenames isn't stressed. It is
in some other English speaking countries, like the USA, but not in England.

Carol responds:

I thought that it was pronounced MIDlum (compare Bedlam/BEDlum for Bethlehem
and GLOSter for Gloucester. I won't even attempt a pronunciation for
Worcestershire. The British tend to suppress middle syllables as far as I
can determine.

Carol

Small village in Yorkshire Appletreewick is pronounced Aptwick!
Paul

On 7 Jan 2013, at 21:46, david rayner wrote:

> I'd have said Wustershure to be clear.
>
> I'm trying to remember how my Grandfather (who was from that county) would have said it: possibly Wurrstershurr.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 7 January 2013, 19:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
>
> Carol said
>
> I won't even attempt a pronunciation for Worcestershire.
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Liz:
>
> Woostershire - it's easy! Let's not forget Leominster (Lemster) or Dorchester (okay that really is Dorchester - trick one).
>
> I'd say Middle-um but I'm not from Yorkshire. You definitely don't emphasise the "ham" bit.
>
> There's a village near where I grew up which is called Uttoxeter but apparently some people round there call it "Utchiter" which mystifies even the British.
>
> ________________________________
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

And just down from Middleham, Masham/Mazum.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 9:45
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard


 
Small village in Yorkshire Appletreewick is pronounced Aptwick!
Paul

On 7 Jan 2013, at 21:46, david rayner wrote:

> I'd have said Wustershure to be clear.
>
> I'm trying to remember how my Grandfather (who was from that county) would have said it: possibly Wurrstershurr.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Monday, 7 January 2013, 19:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
>
> Carol said
>
> I won't even attempt a pronunciation for Worcestershire.
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Liz:
>
> Woostershire - it's easy! Let's not forget Leominster (Lemster) or Dorchester (okay that really is Dorchester - trick one).
>
> I'd say Middle-um but I'm not from Yorkshire. You definitely don't emphasise the "ham" bit.
>
> There's a village near where I grew up which is called Uttoxeter but apparently some people round there call it "Utchiter" which mystifies even the British.
>
> ________________________________
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I've been living in and near North Yorks for 23+ years. I say "Middle-um" (hardly pronouncing the 'um') for Middleham and definitely "Mass'um" for Masham.

Col

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> And just down from Middleham, Masham/Mazum.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 9:45
> Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard
>
>
>  
> Small village in Yorkshire Appletreewick is pronounced Aptwick!
> Paul
>
> On 7 Jan 2013, at 21:46, david rayner wrote:
>
> > I'd have said Wustershure to be clear.
> >
> > I'm trying to remember how my Grandfather (who was from that county) would have said it: possibly Wurrstershurr.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Monday, 7 January 2013, 19:51
> > Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol said
> >
> > I won't even attempt a pronunciation for Worcestershire.
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> >
> > Liz:
> >
> > Woostershire - it's easy! Let's not forget Leominster (Lemster) or Dorchester (okay that really is Dorchester - trick one).
> >
> > I'd say Middle-um but I'm not from Yorkshire. You definitely don't emphasise the "ham" bit.
> >
> > There's a village near where I grew up which is called Uttoxeter but apparently some people round there call it "Utchiter" which mystifies even the British.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen Clark wrote:

"Whether it's [middelum] or [midlum] depends on who's talking. My husband, a
Londoner, would say the former, not the latter. What's certain is that it
won't be [midel-'ham].
And [woostershire]. There are anomalies in the [gloster/leister] pattern,
such as Colchester and Cirencester."

Perhaps it depends on whether there's a vowel or a consonant before the
"cester"?
Doug

Why waste the letters, much less the words? Same as "T'store," with a nod of the head, which would mean, "I'm going to the store, do you want to come along?"

~Weds

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Small village in Yorkshire Appletreewick is pronounced Aptwick!
> Paul

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> I'd have said Wustershure to be clear.
>
> I'm trying to remember how my Grandfather (who was from that county) would have said it: possibly Wurrstershurr.

Carol responds:

What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?

(Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)

Carol

Slou

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough
It isn't fit for humans now

Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.

Best wishes
Christine

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
>
> (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
>
> Carol
>

I thought Slough rhymed with how.
Jacq
To:
From: christinelheadley@...
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)


























Slou



Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough

It isn't fit for humans now



Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.



Best wishes

Christine



--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:

>

> What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?

>

> (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)

>

> Carol

>

I was following Carol's lead - and it definitely doesn't rhyme with know.

C

--- In , Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
>
>
> I thought Slough rhymed with how.
> Jacq
> To:
> From: christinelheadley@...
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
> Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Slou
>
>
>
> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough
>
> It isn't fit for humans now
>
>
>
> Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Christine
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> >
>
> > What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
>
> >
>
> > (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
>
> >
>
> > Carol
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Doug

Most of the time, it does seem to be avoidance of clumsy consonant clusters,
like [Colchster]*. But there isn't one in [Cirenster]* so I wonder why that
one has retained its stressed penultimate syllable. I think it might be what
we linguists call 'one of those things'.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:18:27 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Selling Richard







Karen Clark wrote:

"Whether it's [middelum] or [midlum] depends on who's talking. My husband, a
Londoner, would say the former, not the latter. What's certain is that it
won't be [midel-'ham].
And [woostershire]. There are anomalies in the [gloster/leister] pattern,
such as Colchester and Cirencester."

Perhaps it depends on whether there's a vowel or a consonant before the
"cester"?
Doug

It certainly does rhyme. "There isn't room tpo graze a cow" is the next line.

----- Original Message -----
From: Christine L
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)



Slou

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough
It isn't fit for humans now

Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.

Best wishes
Christine

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
>
> (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
>
> Carol
>

It does indeed.  It also has a reputation even now for being a real dump. 
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Jacqueline Harvey <jacqharvey@...>
To: Richard III forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 18:26
Subject: RE: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)



I thought Slough rhymed with how.
Jacq
To:
From: christinelheadley@...
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)




















 


   
     
     
      Slou



Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough

It isn't fit for humans now



Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.



Best wishes

Christine



--- In , "justcarol67"  wrote:

>

> What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?

>

> (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)

>

> Carol

>





   
   

   
   






                         





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Sluff is used in a derogatory way. Slou is how it is pronounced.
Paul

On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:40, justcarol67 wrote:

>
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
>>
>> I'd have said Wustershure to be clear.
>>
>> I'm trying to remember how my Grandfather (who was from that county) would have said it: possibly Wurrstershurr.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
>
> (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

A snake sloughs (sluffs) off its old skin.

Anne





To:
From: paul.bale@...
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:59:50 +0000
Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)





Sluff is used in a derogatory way. Slou is how it is pronounced.
Paul

On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:40, justcarol67 wrote:

>
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
>>
>> I'd have said Wustershure to be clear.
>>
>> I'm trying to remember how my Grandfather (who was from that county) would have said it: possibly Wurrstershurr.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
>
> (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

It does.

'Come happy bombs and fall on Slough,
It is not fit for people now.'
John Betjeman


> To:
> From: jacqharvey@...
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:26:53 +0000
> Subject: RE: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
>
>
>
> I thought Slough rhymed with how.
> Jacq
> To:
> From: christinelheadley@...
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
> Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Slou
>
>
>
> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough
>
> It isn't fit for humans now
>
>
>
> Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Christine
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> >
>
> > What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
>
> >
>
> > (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
>
> >
>
> > Carol
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Come on ..... Slough Trading Estate is the home of 'The Office'!



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 19:55
Subject: Re: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)


 

It does indeed.  It also has a reputation even now for being a real dump. 
 
Liz

________________________________
From: Jacqueline Harvey mailto:jacqharvey%40live.co.uk>
To: Richard III forum mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 18:26
Subject: RE: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)

I thought Slough rhymed with how.
Jacq
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
From: mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)

 

   
     
     
      Slou

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough

It isn't fit for humans now

Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.

Best wishes

Christine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"  wrote:

>

> What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?

>

> (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)

>

> Carol

>

   
   

   
   

                         



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Thank you peoples...I live in Slough!...!!
Eileen
On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:28, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Come on ..... Slough Trading Estate is the home of 'The Office'!
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 19:55
> Subject: Re: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
>
>
>
>
> It does indeed. It also has a reputation even now for being a real dump.
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jacqueline Harvey mailto:jacqharvey%40live.co.uk>
> To: Richard III forum mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 18:26
> Subject: RE: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
>
> I thought Slough rhymed with how.
> Jacq
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> From: mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
> Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Slou
>
> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough
>
> It isn't fit for humans now
>
> Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Christine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> >
>
> > What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
>
> >
>
> > (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
>
> >
>
> > Carol
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

And you have a very nice railway station with green fish-scale tiles.

Anne



> To:
> From: eileenbates147@...
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:48:28 +0000
> Subject: Re: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
>
> Thank you peoples...I live in Slough!...!!
> Eileen
> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:28, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Come on ..... Slough Trading Estate is the home of 'The Office'!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 19:55
> > Subject: Re: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It does indeed. It also has a reputation even now for being a real dump.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jacqueline Harvey mailto:jacqharvey%40live.co.uk>
> > To: Richard III forum mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 18:26
> > Subject: RE: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> >
> > I thought Slough rhymed with how.
> > Jacq
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > From: mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk
> > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
> > Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Slou
> >
> > Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough
> >
> > It isn't fit for humans now
> >
> > Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Carol
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Joking!!!!!! Gotcha! Hahahahahahahahahahaha Eileen

--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Thank you peoples...I live in Slough!...!!
> Eileen
> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:28, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Come on ..... Slough Trading Estate is the home of 'The Office'!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 19:55
> > Subject: Re: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It does indeed. It also has a reputation even now for being a real dump.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jacqueline Harvey mailto:jacqharvey%40live.co.uk>
> > To: Richard III forum mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 18:26
> > Subject: RE: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> >
> > I thought Slough rhymed with how.
> > Jacq
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > From: mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk
> > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
> > Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Slou
> >
> > Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough
> >
> > It isn't fit for humans now
> >
> > Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Carol
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I was going to e mail and ask you when you moved (and WHY?????)



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 21:51
Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)

 
Joking!!!!!! Gotcha! Hahahahahahahahahahaha Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, eileen bates wrote:
>
> Thank you peoples...I live in Slough!...!!
> Eileen
> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:28, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Come on ..... Slough Trading Estate is the home of 'The Office'!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 19:55
> > Subject: Re: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It does indeed. It also has a reputation even now for being a real dump.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jacqueline Harvey mailto:jacqharvey%40live.co.uk>
> > To: Richard III forum mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 18:26
> > Subject: RE: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> >
> > I thought Slough rhymed with how.
> > Jacq
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > From: mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk
> > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
> > Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Slou
> >
> > Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough
> >
> > It isn't fit for humans now
> >
> > Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Carol
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Liz...I would have replied and said cos I likes Slough Ok....hahahahaha

The remarks on here about Slough have tickled me...I blooming hope noone on here does actually live there though...:0)

Eileen

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I was going to e mail and ask you when you moved (and WHY?????)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 21:51
> Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
>
>  
> Joking!!!!!! Gotcha! Hahahahahahahahahahaha Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Thank you peoples...I live in Slough!...!!
> > Eileen
> > On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:28, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Come on ..... Slough Trading Estate is the home of 'The Office'!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 19:55
> > > Subject: Re: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It does indeed. It also has a reputation even now for being a real dump.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Jacqueline Harvey mailto:jacqharvey%40live.co.uk>
> > > To: Richard III forum mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 18:26
> > > Subject: RE: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> > >
> > > I thought Slough rhymed with how.
> > > Jacq
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > From: mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk
> > > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:25:44 +0000
> > > Subject: Re: British place names, OT (WAS: Selling Richard)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Slou
> > >
> > > Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough
> > >
> > > It isn't fit for humans now
> > >
> > > Which is the only poetry by John Betjeman that I know (which doesn't rhyme). And I can't remember what particularly caused his ire.
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > >
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > What about the lovely village of Slough, which I remember passing when I was traveling between London and Oxford on the Oxford Tube (which was sometimes a train and sometimes a bus)? Is it Sluff, Slou (with the vowel sound of "ouch"), Slew, or something different altogether? I always thought it was a horrible name, regardless. Why not just call the place "Swamp"?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > (Yes, I know that we have some equally awful place names in the U.S. but that would be even more OT than this thread!)
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Carol
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>