My two farthings . . .

No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
real achievements.



The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
undertake, not the Society.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:


 
No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
real achievements.

The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
undertake, not the Society.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

Me:  
That's true to a certain extent, however, the Society cannot run away from historical sources it doesn't like and pretend they do not exist.  It already has to contend with a perception that it is a group of ladies of a certain age who are in love with a dead man.  It is a society pledged to work towards a reassessment of the way Richard has been treated by history.  Therefore it has to tackle historical sources head on.  That doesn't mean having a website which ignores all the sources/historians who have a different view of Richard.  Someone with an interest in Richard and/or the period may come to the Society's website without having much knowledge of what it (the Society) does and it is important that those people are not given the impression that only people with a 100% view of Richard as a 'saint' can belong and that it is some sort of heresy to think differently.  Ricardians have to persuade people through well founded research and argument.
 You can't do that by simply ignoring any alternative views which do not fit your view - after all that's what anti-Richardians do.  

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

I am proud to be a member of the Society which has done sterling work for a very long time to dispel many of the myths and falsehoods regarding Richard...without them Richard's (hopefully) remains would still be lying beneath a car park...
and I appreciate fully they do not want to get the label 'Fan Club' attached to them....and yes they must give a balanced view ...but...and I refer to the website with regards to this and not to the Bulletins which are excellent...they must take care not to stray too far down the path whereby they play into the anti-Ricards/pro Tudors hands in an attempt to appear fair and balanced because I don't think this will get reciprocated. In fact there is a danger of shooting -oneself- in -the -foot-itis here. Just my humble opinion....

But definitely I think in all fairness concerns on here about the content of some of the articles online should be viewed by the Website as constructive criticism and taken on board. Ive gained an impression from the Bulletin that they are a fair lot and open to comments and suggestions...Long may the Bulletin continue...when's the next one?

Eileen
On 7 Jan 2013, at 11:29, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
> and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
> real achievements.
>
> The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
> view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
> all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
> of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
> and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
> Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
> undertake, not the Society.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>

Its quite a creepy thought isnt it..."a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man"....Eileen :0)
On 7 Jan 2013, at 11:44, Pamela Furmidge wrote:

>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>
> No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
> and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
> real achievements.
>
> The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
> view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
> all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
> of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
> and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
> Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
> undertake, not the Society.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> Me:
> That's true to a certain extent, however, the Society cannot run away from historical sources it doesn't like and pretend they do not exist. It already has to contend with a perception that it is a group of ladies of a certain age who are in love with a dead man. It is a society pledged to work towards a reassessment of the way Richard has been treated by history. Therefore it has to tackle historical sources head on. That doesn't mean having a website which ignores all the sources/historians who have a different view of Richard. Someone with an interest in Richard and/or the period may come to the Society's website without having much knowledge of what it (the Society) does and it is important that those people are not given the impression that only people with a 100% view of Richard as a 'saint' can belong and that it is some sort of heresy to think differently. Ricardians have to persuade people through well founded research and argument.
> You can't do that by simply ignoring any alternative views which do not fit your view - after all that's what anti-Richardians do.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hello, Pamela 



I'm a woman of a certain age. It's interesting to find out that my membership constitutes a potential embarrassment to the Society. And I guess my background is irrelevant to determining desirability from the Society's point of view. Interesting . . .



Nowhere am I suggesting that the Society ignore historical sources that it doesn't like. However, Richard Starkey and Michael Hicks are not historical sources. Unfortunately, most of the sources which do exist for Richard are not truly contemporary with him, so I believe that even Thomas More has to be used  but with care and with critical scrutiny. In my view, the problem with historians like Hicks and Starkey is that they have as much of a bias, though perhaps they don't acknowledge it  and there are  or were  people here on this forum who are more knowledgeable about the period and about Richard than these historians are. Why should the Society be in effect sponsoring some of the men who are the most influential in the anti-Richard camp? The views of those historians may actually mislead the person who is not very knowledgeable, and their opinions may be misconstrued as representing the views of the Society. I am perfectly happy with criticism if it is carefully assembled and well-reasoned. And there are always at least two sides to every story. There is a reason why the Society exists  it is precisely because the conventional wisdom about Richard has been so unutterably scurrilous. Therefore the Society's mission is to work to rectify that situation, in my view, not to provide a forum for people who would not believe anything good of Richard if they found proof that he was the true author of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. LOL!



BTW, that argument about people who believe Richard was a saint is a straw man, imho. I don't know anyone here, no matter how devoted he/she is to Richard, who would assert that he was without flaws (and neither are the saints, btw, which is what makes them so interesting).



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - <mailto:jltournier60@...> jltournier60@...

or <mailto:jltournier@...> jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .







________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:


No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
real achievements.

The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
undertake, not the Society.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

Me:
That's true to a certain extent, however, the Society cannot run away from historical sources it doesn't like and pretend they do not exist. It already has to contend with a perception that it is a group of ladies of a certain age who are in love with a dead man. It is a society pledged to work towards a reassessment of the way Richard has been treated by history. Therefore it has to tackle historical sources head on. That doesn't mean having a website which ignores all the sources/historians who have a different view of Richard. Someone with an interest in Richard and/or the period may come to the Society's website without having much knowledge of what it (the Society) does and it is important that those people are not given the impression that only people with a 100% view of Richard as a 'saint' can belong and that it is some sort of heresy to think differently. Ricardians have to persuade people through well founded research and argument.
You can't do that by simply ignoring any alternative views which do not fit your view - after all that's what anti-Richardians do.

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

Johanne...I have to say that is an excellent post...I wonder if there is a way it could be forwarded to the website or even Phil Stone himself..I feel strongly that views such as yours...which I agree with... should be made known to the Society as they are probably wasted on here if small changes need to be made. Your views...and others who have posted similar on here.... are important and should be made known if anything is to be done. Eileen

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Nowhere am I suggesting that the Society ignore “historical sources” that it doesn’t like. However, Richard Starkey and Michael Hicks are not “historical sources.” Unfortunately, most of the sources which do exist for Richard are not truly contemporary with him, so I believe that even Thomas More has to be used â€" but with care and with critical scrutiny. In my view, the problem with “historians” like Hicks and Starkey is that they have as much of a bias, though perhaps they don’t acknowledge it â€" and there are â€" or were â€" people here on this forum who are more knowledgeable about the period and about Richard than these historians are. Why should the Society be in effect “sponsoring” some of the men who are the most influential in the anti-Richard camp? The views of those “historians” may actually mislead the person who is not very knowledgeable, and their opinions may be misconstrued as representing the views of the Society. I am perfectly happy with criticism if it is carefully assembled and well-reasoned. And there are always at least two sides to every story. There is a reason why the Society exists â€" it is precisely because the conventional wisdom about Richard has been so unutterably scurrilous. Therefore the Society’s mission is to work to rectify that situation, in my view, not to provide a forum for people who would not believe anything good of Richard if they found proof that he was the true author of the “Declaration of the Rights of Man.” LOL!
>
>
>
> BTW, that argument about “people who believe Richard was a saint” is a straw man, imho. I don’t know anyone here, no matter how devoted he/she is to Richard, who would assert that he was without flaws (and neither are the saints, btw, which is what makes them so interesting).
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... > wrote:
>
>
> No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
> and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
> real achievements.
>
> The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
> view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
> all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
> of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
> and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
> Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
> undertake, not the Society.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> Me:
> That's true to a certain extent, however, the Society cannot run away from historical sources it doesn't like and pretend they do not exist. It already has to contend with a perception that it is a group of ladies of a certain age who are in love with a dead man. It is a society pledged to work towards a reassessment of the way Richard has been treated by history. Therefore it has to tackle historical sources head on. That doesn't mean having a website which ignores all the sources/historians who have a different view of Richard. Someone with an interest in Richard and/or the period may come to the Society's website without having much knowledge of what it (the Society) does and it is important that those people are not given the impression that only people with a 100% view of Richard as a 'saint' can belong and that it is some sort of heresy to think differently. Ricardians have to persuade people through well founded research and argument.
> You can't do that by simply ignoring any alternative views which do not fit your view - after all that's what anti-Richardians do.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Eileen 



Thanks for your kind words. I could forward mine through the Comments section on the Society website, which has been mentioned here. I appreciated your earlier comments (which did not reference mine) also. Very good points, I thought.



The Society has in my view, done a lot of good work  it warms my heart just to see the monuments and memorials that the Society has erected  especially the works of art like the statue of the youthful Richard in Leicester, and the stained glass at York and at Cardigan (I think it is). I believe that those are more the actions of a fan club (to use a pejorative phrase) than of a scholarly body. Maybe we should come up with a politer term than fan club  how about a society advocating re-assessment of the legacy of King Richard III? <smile>



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 9:21 AM
To:
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .





Johanne...I have to say that is an excellent post...I wonder if there is a way it could be forwarded to the website or even Phil Stone himself..I feel strongly that views such as yours...which I agree with... should be made known to the Society as they are probably wasted on here if small changes need to be made. Your views...and others who have posted similar on here.... are important and should be made known if anything is to be done. Eileen
_._,_.___


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZWJzYjZpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzIxODY3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1NzU2NDg2NQ--?act=reply&messageNum=21867> Reply via web post

<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...?subject=Re%3A%20My%20two%20farthings%20%2E%20%2E%20%2E> Reply to sender

<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20My%20two%20farthings%20%2E%20%2E%20%2E> Reply to group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaWgxZDJlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NzU2NDg2NQ--> Start a New Topic

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/21856;_ylc=X3oDMTM2cmdqb3NxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzIxODY3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NzU2NDg2NQR0cGNJZAMyMTg1Ng--> Messages in this topic (6)

Recent Activity:

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlamNib3FvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NzU2NDg2NQ--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbmE4Z2ZoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU3NTY0ODY1> Yahoo! Groups

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

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=21867/stime=1357564865/nc1=5008816/nc2=3848614/nc3=4025291>

Johanne: It's David Starkey, not Richard Starkey, lol!!! That's Ringo Starr. I just had to laugh at that one. In googling around, I found a You Tube video of DS getting in a ruckus with the actor Brian Cox. It was about some political situation. Out of nowhere, DS started yelling about what a creep Richard the Third was! Talk about a bee in your bonnet. Fondly, Maire.

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hello, Pamela â€"
>
>
>
> I’m a woman of a certain age. It’s interesting to find out that my membership constitutes a potential embarrassment to the Society. And I guess my background is irrelevant to determining desirability from the Society’s point of view. Interesting . . .
>
>
>
> Nowhere am I suggesting that the Society ignore “historical sources” that it doesn’t like. However, Richard Starkey and Michael Hicks are not “historical sources.” Unfortunately, most of the sources which do exist for Richard are not truly contemporary with him, so I believe that even Thomas More has to be used â€" but with care and with critical scrutiny. In my view, the problem with “historians” like Hicks and Starkey is that they have as much of a bias, though perhaps they don’t acknowledge it â€" and there are â€" or were â€" people here on this forum who are more knowledgeable about the period and about Richard than these historians are. Why should the Society be in effect “sponsoring” some of the men who are the most influential in the anti-Richard camp? The views of those “historians” may actually mislead the person who is not very knowledgeable, and their opinions may be misconstrued as representing the views of the Society. I am perfectly happy with criticism if it is carefully assembled and well-reasoned. And there are always at least two sides to every story. There is a reason why the Society exists â€" it is precisely because the conventional wisdom about Richard has been so unutterably scurrilous. Therefore the Society’s mission is to work to rectify that situation, in my view, not to provide a forum for people who would not believe anything good of Richard if they found proof that he was the true author of the “Declaration of the Rights of Man.” LOL!
>
>
>
> BTW, that argument about “people who believe Richard was a saint” is a straw man, imho. I don’t know anyone here, no matter how devoted he/she is to Richard, who would assert that he was without flaws (and neither are the saints, btw, which is what makes them so interesting).
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... > wrote:
>
>
> No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
> and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
> real achievements.
>
> The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
> view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
> all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
> of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
> and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
> Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
> undertake, not the Society.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> Me:
> That's true to a certain extent, however, the Society cannot run away from historical sources it doesn't like and pretend they do not exist. It already has to contend with a perception that it is a group of ladies of a certain age who are in love with a dead man. It is a society pledged to work towards a reassessment of the way Richard has been treated by history. Therefore it has to tackle historical sources head on. That doesn't mean having a website which ignores all the sources/historians who have a different view of Richard. Someone with an interest in Richard and/or the period may come to the Society's website without having much knowledge of what it (the Society) does and it is important that those people are not given the impression that only people with a 100% view of Richard as a 'saint' can belong and that it is some sort of heresy to think differently. Ricardians have to persuade people through well founded research and argument.
> You can't do that by simply ignoring any alternative views which do not fit your view - after all that's what anti-Richardians do.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne, I think you misunderstand what I am saying.  By the way, I do not speak for the Society (which is what your post implies) however I have been a member of it for a considerable number of years.  I am fully aware that in the eyes of some people, it is indeed regarded as a fan club for romantics and that is the perception it has to move away from if it is to be taken seriously.  Just my opinion, but one which I am entitled to have.


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>

 
Hello, Pamela 

I'm a woman of a certain age. It's interesting to find out that my membership constitutes a potential embarrassment to the Society. And I guess my background is irrelevant to determining desirability from the Society's point of view. Interesting . . .

Nowhere am I suggesting that the Society ignore historical sources that it doesn't like. However, Richard Starkey and Michael Hicks are not historical sources. Unfortunately, most of the sources which do exist for Richard are not truly contemporary with him, so I believe that even Thomas More has to be used  but with care and with critical scrutiny. In my view, the problem with historians like Hicks and Starkey is that they have as much of a bias, though perhaps they don't acknowledge it  and there are  or were  people here on this forum who are more knowledgeable about the period and about Richard than these historians are. Why should the Society be in effect sponsoring some of the men who are the most influential in the anti-Richard camp? The views of those historians may actually mislead the person who is not very knowledgeable, and their opinions may be misconstrued as representing the views of the
Society. I am perfectly happy with criticism if it is carefully assembled and well-reasoned. And there are always at least two sides to every story. There is a reason why the Society exists  it is precisely because the conventional wisdom about Richard has been so unutterably scurrilous. Therefore the Society's mission is to work to rectify that situation, in my view, not to provide a forum for people who would not believe anything good of Richard if they found proof that he was the true author of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. LOL!

BTW, that argument about people who believe Richard was a saint is a straw man, imho. I don't know anyone here, no matter how devoted he/she is to Richard, who would assert that he was without flaws (and neither are the saints, btw, which is what makes them so interesting).

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...> jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...> jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... > wrote:

No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
real achievements.

The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
undertake, not the Society.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

Me:
That's true to a certain extent, however, the Society cannot run away from historical sources it doesn't like and pretend they do not exist. It already has to contend with a perception that it is a group of ladies of a certain age who are in love with a dead man. It is a society pledged to work towards a reassessment of the way Richard has been treated by history. Therefore it has to tackle historical sources head on. That doesn't mean having a website which ignores all the sources/historians who have a different view of Richard. Someone with an interest in Richard and/or the period may come to the Society's website without having much knowledge of what it (the Society) does and it is important that those people are not given the impression that only people with a 100% view of Richard as a 'saint' can belong and that it is some sort of heresy to think differently. Ricardians have to persuade people through well founded research and argument.
You can't do that by simply ignoring any alternative views which do not fit your view - after all that's what anti-Richardians do.

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

Hi, Maire 

I like Richard Starkey better than David Starkey! Thanks for mentioning that . . . Duh!



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 9:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .





Johanne: It's David Starkey, not Richard Starkey, lol!!! That's Ringo Starr. I just had to laugh at that one. In googling around, I found a You Tube video of DS getting in a ruckus with the actor Brian Cox. It was about some political situation. Out of nowhere, DS started yelling about what a creep Richard the Third was! Talk about a bee in your bonnet. Fondly, Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hello, Pamela â¬"
>
>
>
> Iâ¬"m a woman of a certain age. Itâ¬"s interesting to find out that my membership constitutes a potential embarrassment to the Society. And I guess my background is irrelevant to determining desirability from the Societyâ¬"s point of view. Interesting . . .
>
>
>
> Nowhere am I suggesting that the Society ignore â¬Shistorical sources⬝ that it doesnâ¬"t like. However, Richard Starkey and Michael Hicks are not â¬Shistorical sources.⬝ Unfortunately, most of the sources which do exist for Richard are not truly contemporary with him, so I believe that even Thomas More has to be used â¬" but with care and with critical scrutiny. In my view, the problem with â¬Shistorians⬝ like Hicks and Starkey is that they have as much of a bias, though perhaps they donâ¬"t acknowledge it â¬" and there are â¬" or were â¬" people here on this forum who are more knowledgeable about the period and about Richard than these historians are. Why should the Society be in effect â¬Ssponsoring⬝ some of the men who are the most influential in the anti-Richard camp? The views of those â¬Shistorians⬝ may actually mislead the person who is not very knowledgeable, and their opinions may be misconstrued as representing the views of the Society. I am perfectly happy with criticism if it is carefully assembled and well-reasoned. And there are always at least two sides to every story. There is a reason why the Society exists â¬" it is precisely because the conventional wisdom about Richard has been so unutterably scurrilous. Therefore the Societyâ¬"s mission is to work to rectify that situation, in my view, not to provide a forum for people who would not believe anything good of Richard if they found proof that he was the true author of the â¬SDeclaration of the Rights of Man.⬝ LOL!
>
>
>
> BTW, that argument about â¬Speople who believe Richard was a saint⬝ is a straw man, imho. I donâ¬"t know anyone here, no matter how devoted he/she is to Richard, who would assert that he was without flaws (and neither are the saints, btw, which is what makes them so interesting).
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:44 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... > wrote:
>
>
> No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
> and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
> real achievements.
>
> The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
> view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
> all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
> of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
> and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
> Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
> undertake, not the Society.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> Me:
> That's true to a certain extent, however, the Society cannot run away from historical sources it doesn't like and pretend they do not exist. It already has to contend with a perception that it is a group of ladies of a certain age who are in love with a dead man. It is a society pledged to work towards a reassessment of the way Richard has been treated by history. Therefore it has to tackle historical sources head on. That doesn't mean having a website which ignores all the sources/historians who have a different view of Richard. Someone with an interest in Richard and/or the period may come to the Society's website without having much knowledge of what it (the Society) does and it is important that those people are not given the impression that only people with a 100% view of Richard as a 'saint' can belong and that it is some sort of heresy to think differently. Ricardians have to persuade people through well founded research and argument.
> You can't do that by simply ignoring any alternative views which do not fit your view - after all that's what anti-Richardians do.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne,

I think this is a very good point!

Present day historians who challenge our view have a place and it keeps us on our toes, just as we have to challenge other views through the centuries. BUT surely it's up to the Society to sponsor the 'Defence Counsels' to fight R's corner (otherwise why does it exist?). If they lose, then perhaps we should all re-examine our evidence, but there is nothing yet to convince me that we are fundamentally wrong. As you so correctly say, R is the first king for a long time who cared about the Law, right and wrong, and the general good of the Englishman. That should be enough by far.

As a woman of a certain age, I don't see him as a saint. If I'd wanted to chose a saint it would have been H6 - and how far did that get him, or England?

Cheers Hilary




--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
> and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
> real achievements.
>
>
>
> The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
> view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
> all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
> of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
> and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
> Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
> undertake, not the Society.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne, Pamela and All, like I said in one my earlier emails, the Society page can include both sides in an argument. Take the dispensation issue. They can publish the article by Hicks and Marie and then let the reader make up their own mind.....




________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 8:04 AM
Subject: RE: My two farthings . . .


 
Hello, Pamela 

I'm a woman of a certain age. It's interesting to find out that my membership constitutes a potential embarrassment to the Society. And I guess my background is irrelevant to determining desirability from the Society's point of view. Interesting . . .

Nowhere am I suggesting that the Society ignore historical sources that it doesn't like. However, Richard Starkey and Michael Hicks are not historical sources. Unfortunately, most of the sources which do exist for Richard are not truly contemporary with him, so I believe that even Thomas More has to be used  but with care and with critical scrutiny. In my view, the problem with historians like Hicks and Starkey is that they have as much of a bias, though perhaps they don't acknowledge it  and there are  or were  people here on this forum who are more knowledgeable about the period and about Richard than these historians are. Why should the Society be in effect sponsoring some of the men who are the most influential in the anti-Richard camp? The views of those historians may actually mislead the person who is not very knowledgeable, and their opinions may be misconstrued as representing the views of the
Society. I am perfectly happy with criticism if it is carefully assembled and well-reasoned. And there are always at least two sides to every story. There is a reason why the Society exists  it is precisely because the conventional wisdom about Richard has been so unutterably scurrilous. Therefore the Society's mission is to work to rectify that situation, in my view, not to provide a forum for people who would not believe anything good of Richard if they found proof that he was the true author of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. LOL!

BTW, that argument about people who believe Richard was a saint is a straw man, imho. I don't know anyone here, no matter how devoted he/she is to Richard, who would assert that he was without flaws (and neither are the saints, btw, which is what makes them so interesting).

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...> jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...> jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... > wrote:

No one is perfect. But did Richard have sincere ideals? I believe he did,
and that is one aspect of his life that has often been lost, along with his
real achievements.

The Society exists to foster a reevaluation of Richard's legacy. So, in my
view, its job is not to promulgate the views of Tudor historians who are not
all that knowledgeable, in actuality, of Richard and his era. The officers
of the Society should keep the mission of the Society in mind, I believe,
and carefully consider if something that is being proposed is furthering the
Society's mission - or not. And if not, it should be left to another body to
undertake, not the Society.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

Me:
That's true to a certain extent, however, the Society cannot run away from historical sources it doesn't like and pretend they do not exist. It already has to contend with a perception that it is a group of ladies of a certain age who are in love with a dead man. It is a society pledged to work towards a reassessment of the way Richard has been treated by history. Therefore it has to tackle historical sources head on. That doesn't mean having a website which ignores all the sources/historians who have a different view of Richard. Someone with an interest in Richard and/or the period may come to the Society's website without having much knowledge of what it (the Society) does and it is important that those people are not given the impression that only people with a 100% view of Richard as a 'saint' can belong and that it is some sort of heresy to think differently. Ricardians have to persuade people through well founded research and argument.
You can't do that by simply ignoring any alternative views which do not fit your view - after all that's what anti-Richardians do.

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

>. Maybe we should come up with a politer term than fan club  how
>about a society advocating re-assessment of the legacy of King
>Richard III? <smile>

Hi Johanne

See below the Mission statement of the Society -

In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of
the role of this monarch in English history.

The Richard III Society may, at first glance, appear to be an
extraordinary phenomenon - a society dedicated to reclaiming the
reputation of a king of England who died over 500 years ago and who
reigned for little more than two years. Richard's infamy over the
centuries has been due to the continuing popularity, and the belief in,
the picture painted of Richard III by William Shakespeare in his play of
that name. The validity of this representation of Richard has been
queried over the centuries and has now been taken up by the Society.

The Society is perhaps best summed up by its Patron, the present
Richard, Duke of Gloucester:

"& the purpose and indeed the strength of the Richard III Society
derive from the belief that the truth is more powerful than lies - a
faith that even after all these centuries the truth is important. It is
proof of our sense of civilised values that something as esoteric and as
fragile as reputation is worth campaigning for."


Thought this needed posting at some point - you've given me the
opportunity - thank you :))

cheers

Jac

Thanks, Jacqui!



I appreciate the mission statement and think it expresses the ideals behind the Society beautifully.



And my personal belief is that it is possible to be an advocate for Richard and yet open to contrary views, to be fair, open-minded and mature. I just don't think that the Society, in its role of advocate on behalf of Richard's legacy, is obliged to spread the views of those who are contrary-minded.



Those are my two farthings. <smile>



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne





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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of jacqui
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:46 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: My two farthings . . .





>. Maybe we should come up with a politer term than fan club  how
>about a society advocating re-assessment of the legacy of King
>Richard III?

Hi Johanne

See below the Mission statement of the Society -

In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of
the role of this monarch in English history.

The Richard III Society may, at first glance, appear to be an
extraordinary phenomenon - a society dedicated to reclaiming the
reputation of a king of England who died over 500 years ago and who
reigned for little more than two years. Richard's infamy over the
centuries has been due to the continuing popularity, and the belief in,
the picture painted of Richard III by William Shakespeare in his play of
that name. The validity of this representation of Richard has been
queried over the centuries and has now been taken up by the Society.

The Society is perhaps best summed up by its Patron, the present
Richard, Duke of Gloucester:

"& the purpose and indeed the strength of the Richard III Society
derive from the belief that the truth is more powerful than lies - a
faith that even after all these centuries the truth is important. It is
proof of our sense of civilised values that something as esoteric and as
fragile as reputation is worth campaigning for."

Thought this needed posting at some point - you've given me the
opportunity - thank you :))

cheers

Jac

Eileen wrote:

> Its quite a creepy thought isnt it..."a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man"....Eileen :0)

Me writes:

One could write a really bad new-age romance novel around that.

"My grandmother dragged me to this seance last Saturday night where I sat in a circle with a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man. They tried summoning him, and guess what? He's followed me home. I've tried shoving him under my bed and pretending he's not there, but he keeps climbing out and snarling at me about Treason, the Tydder, and how his nephews will be lost without him. A hacked-off, formerly hacked-up, medieval king? Not the best flatmate. Any advice on how to evict same? Terrified of my obsessed granny finding out he's here...."

~Weds

I love the humor that has found it's way on this forum!  If we can't laugh at ourselves....................
Vickie

From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .

 
Eileen wrote:

> Its quite a creepy thought isnt it..."a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man"....Eileen :0)

Me writes:

One could write a really bad new-age romance novel around that.

"My grandmother dragged me to this seance last Saturday night where I sat in a circle with a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man. They tried summoning him, and guess what? He's followed me home. I've tried shoving him under my bed and pretending he's not there, but he keeps climbing out and snarling at me about Treason, the Tydder, and how his nephews will be lost without him. A hacked-off, formerly hacked-up, medieval king? Not the best flatmate. Any advice on how to evict same? Terrified of my obsessed granny finding out he's here...."

~Weds

Hahahhahaha!!!!
Love your humor Weds:)



________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Re: My two farthings . . .


 
I love the humor that has found it's way on this forum!  If we can't laugh at ourselves....................
Vickie

From: wednesday_mc wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .

 
Eileen wrote:

> Its quite a creepy thought isnt it..."a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man"....Eileen :0)

Me writes:

One could write a really bad new-age romance novel around that.

"My grandmother dragged me to this seance last Saturday night where I sat in a circle with a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man. They tried summoning him, and guess what? He's followed me home. I've tried shoving him under my bed and pretending he's not there, but he keeps climbing out and snarling at me about Treason, the Tydder, and how his nephews will be lost without him. A hacked-off, formerly hacked-up, medieval king? Not the best flatmate. Any advice on how to evict same? Terrified of my obsessed granny finding out he's here...."

~Weds

How about a romance novel where the heroine returns from the seance only to find out that it's Henry VII who has followed her home - not her beloved Richard? We could call it "I Went to a Seance and all I Got was a Lousy Tudor." Maire.

--- In , Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> I love the humor that has found it's way on this forum!  If we can't laugh at ourselves....................
> Vickie
>
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .
>
>  
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Its quite a creepy thought isnt it..."a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man"....Eileen :0)
>
> Me writes:
>
> One could write a really bad new-age romance novel around that.
>
> "My grandmother dragged me to this seance last Saturday night where I sat in a circle with a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man. They tried summoning him, and guess what? He's followed me home. I've tried shoving him under my bed and pretending he's not there, but he keeps climbing out and snarling at me about Treason, the Tydder, and how his nephews will be lost without him. A hacked-off, formerly hacked-up, medieval king? Not the best flatmate. Any advice on how to evict same? Terrified of my obsessed granny finding out he's here...."
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
>
>

This whole commentary, reminds me of the great late, Jake Thackery and his  The Castleford Ladies' Magical Circle for those of you who know the song I am sure that you will be grinning by now and for those that don't



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3T8lgRe6FQ



George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie Cook
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: My two farthings . . .





I love the humor that has found it's way on this forum! If we can't laugh at ourselves....................
Vickie

From: wednesday_mc wednesday.mac@... <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .


Eileen wrote:

> Its quite a creepy thought isnt it..."a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man"....Eileen :0)

Me writes:

One could write a really bad new-age romance novel around that.

"My grandmother dragged me to this seance last Saturday night where I sat in a circle with a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man. They tried summoning him, and guess what? He's followed me home. I've tried shoving him under my bed and pretending he's not there, but he keeps climbing out and snarling at me about Treason, the Tydder, and how his nephews will be lost without him. A hacked-off, formerly hacked-up, medieval king? Not the best flatmate. Any advice on how to evict same? Terrified of my obsessed granny finding out he's here...."

~Weds

Very funny, indeed! 

Or if, as in Truly, Madly, Deeply, Richard invites a few of his dead mates over for the night? Careful what you wish for... :-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 12:53 PM
Subject: RE: Re: My two farthings . . .


 
This whole commentary, reminds me of the great late, Jake Thackery and his  The Castleford Ladies' Magical Circle for those of you who know the song I am sure that you will be grinning by now and for those that don't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3T8lgRe6FQ

George

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie Cook
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: My two farthings . . .

I love the humor that has found it's way on this forum! If we can't laugh at ourselves....................
Vickie

From: wednesday_mc wednesday.mac@... >
To:
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .

Eileen wrote:

> Its quite a creepy thought isnt it..."a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man"....Eileen :0)

Me writes:

One could write a really bad new-age romance novel around that.

"My grandmother dragged me to this seance last Saturday night where I sat in a circle with a group of ladies of a certain age in love with a dead man. They tried summoning him, and guess what? He's followed me home. I've tried shoving him under my bed and pretending he's not there, but he keeps climbing out and snarling at me about Treason, the Tydder, and how his nephews will be lost without him. A hacked-off, formerly hacked-up, medieval king? Not the best flatmate. Any advice on how to evict same? Terrified of my obsessed granny finding out he's here...."

~Weds

I think that might end up being a gothic horror novel.


--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> How about a romance novel where the heroine returns from the seance only to find out that it's Henry VII who has followed her home - not her beloved Richard? We could call it "I Went to a Seance and all I Got was a Lousy Tudor." Maire.

Flat-share comedy, surely?  With Henry constantly moaning about the expense of light and heating, and threatening to execute the neighbours for playing their music too loud.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 7 January 2013, 22:04
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .


 
I think that might end up being a gothic horror novel.

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> How about a romance novel where the heroine returns from the seance only to find out that it's Henry VII who has followed her home - not her beloved Richard? We could call it "I Went to a Seance and all I Got was a Lousy Tudor." Maire.

Yes, that's perfect. The late, great Leonard Rossiter would have been a good Henry.

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Flat-share comedy, surely?  With Henry constantly moaning about the expense of light and heating, and threatening to execute the neighbours for playing their music too loud.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 7 January 2013, 22:04
> Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .
>
>
>  
> I think that might end up being a gothic horror novel.
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > How about a romance novel where the heroine returns from the seance only to find out that it's Henry VII who has followed her home - not her beloved Richard? We could call it "I Went to a Seance and all I Got was a Lousy Tudor." Maire.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Flat-share comedy it is.

Maybe both Richard and Henry should follow her home? While Henry's moaning about the utilities and loud music, Richard might never disarm and is determined to protect the girl from everyone he deems undesirable. Which is pretty much every male under the age of 12 who comes near. Of course he doesn't consider Tydder a threat, and the girl probably knows Shaolin Kung Fu, kickboxing, and wushu....

~Weds


--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Flat-share comedy, surely?  With Henry constantly moaning about the expense of light and heating, and threatening to execute the neighbours for playing their music too loud.
>
> Jonathan

Henry would be so busy checking out her savings accounts and consumer durables Richard woud be able to clobber him and spirit her away to safety.

Anne





To:
From: wednesday.mac@...
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 17:21:42 +0000
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .





Flat-share comedy it is.

Maybe both Richard and Henry should follow her home? While Henry's moaning about the utilities and loud music, Richard might never disarm and is determined to protect the girl from everyone he deems undesirable. Which is pretty much every male under the age of 12 who comes near. Of course he doesn't consider Tydder a threat, and the girl probably knows Shaolin Kung Fu, kickboxing, and wushu....

~Weds

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Flat-share comedy, surely?ý With Henry constantly moaning about the expense of light and heating, and threatening to execute the neighbours for playing their music too loud.
>
> Jonathan

Ahem . . . Weds, it should read “Which is pretty much every male over the
age of 12 who comes near,” n’est-ce pas?



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 1:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .





Flat-share comedy it is.

Maybe both Richard and Henry should follow her home? While Henry's moaning
about the utilities and loud music, Richard might never disarm and is
determined to protect the girl from everyone he deems undesirable. Which is
pretty much every male under the age of 12 who comes near. Of course he
doesn't consider Tydder a threat, and the girl probably knows Shaolin Kung
Fu, kickboxing, and wushu....

~Weds

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Flat-share comedy, surely? With Henry constantly moaning about the
expense of light and heating, and threatening to execute the neighbours for
playing their music too loud.
>
> Jonathan

Oops. Yes, please. ::facepalm:: I type too fast for my brain to keep up sometimes. Proofreader, I needz one. :)

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Ahem . . . Weds, it should read "Which is pretty much every male over the
> age of 12 who comes near," n'est-ce pas?

Hi, Weds -

Ah, yes, I thought that was what you meant. Otherwise, Richard at the least
would be a bully (which he certainly was not), and our heroine would be in
even deeper trouble. <tongue firmly in cheek>



If I weren't so busy with my courses this term, I would be happy to be your
proofreader. It would be worth it to be exposed to your hilarity on a
regular basis!



LOL!



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:16 PM
To:
Subject: Re: My two farthings . . .

Oops. Yes, please. ::facepalm:: I type too fast for my brain to keep up
sometimes. Proofreader, I needz one. :)

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Ahem . . . Weds, it should read "Which is pretty much every male over the
> age of 12 who comes near," n'est-ce pas?