film or video for us all

Re: the Tv program about the DNA research&.Does anyone have an idea of the final form of the film and its availability of such, to all interested persons worldwide? We know that eventually we all can see this documentation, but what is being done to present it to us, in the months to come. We will be consumers, but of what&.A cd disc set&."Grey Friars Abbey"&The Miniseries&? what is going on? Carol D.

regarding the DNA testing. It is said that the bone sample DNA will be compared to current Plantagenet DNA. So just wondering who is donating the current DNA samples?
(and why not go ahead and DNA test the bones of the tower stairs' samples at the same time since its all on the table...)
Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 9:38 pm
Subject: film or video for us all


Re: the Tv program about the DNA research&.Does anyone have an idea of the final
orm of the film and its availability of such, to all interested persons
orldwide? We know that eventually we all can see this documentation, but what
s being done to present it to us, in the months to come. We will be consumers,
ut of what&.A cd disc set&."Grey Friars Abbey"&The Miniseries&? what is going
n? Carol D.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Because the Queen doesn't want to?

--- In , raymond long wrote:
.
.
.
> (and why not go ahead and DNA test the bones of the tower stairs' samples at the same time since its all on the table...)
> Ray

There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.

----- Original Message -----
From: raymond long
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: film or video for us all



regarding the DNA testing. It is said that the bone sample DNA will be compared to current Plantagenet DNA. So just wondering who is donating the current DNA samples?
(and why not go ahead and DNA test the bones of the tower stairs' samples at the same time since its all on the table...)
Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Darling cdarlingart1@...>
To: >
Sent: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 9:38 pm
Subject: film or video for us all

Re: the Tv program about the DNA research&.Does anyone have an idea of the final
orm of the film and its availability of such, to all interested persons
orldwide? We know that eventually we all can see this documentation, but what
s being done to present it to us, in the months to come. We will be consumers,
ut of what&.A cd disc set&."Grey Friars Abbey"&The Miniseries&? what is going
n? Carol D.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Stephen , thanks, I had imagined it was someone currently residing in the UK. Will google MIchael Ibsen and check out his background,
Ray



-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 12:07 pm
Subject: Re: film or video for us all




There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.

----- Original Message -----
From: raymond long
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

regarding the DNA testing. It is said that the bone sample DNA will be compared to current Plantagenet DNA. So just wondering who is donating the current DNA samples?
(and why not go ahead and DNA test the bones of the tower stairs' samples at the same time since its all on the table...)
Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Darling cdarlingart1@...>
To: >
Sent: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 9:38 pm
Subject: film or video for us all

Re: the Tv program about the DNA research&.Does anyone have an idea of the final
orm of the film and its availability of such, to all interested persons
orldwide? We know that eventually we all can see this documentation, but what
s being done to present it to us, in the months to come. We will be consumers,
ut of what&.A cd disc set&."Grey Friars Abbey"&The Miniseries&? what is going
n? Carol D.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.

Carol responds:

Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).

As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.

Carol

OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.

On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.

Carol responds:

Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).

As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.

Carol

That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>
>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>
> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!

On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>
>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>
> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
"Sir" George

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>
>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>
>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!

On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



"Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
"Sir" George

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>
>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>
>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

My apologies
G

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>
>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>
>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Not a problem....

On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:56 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



My apologies
G

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>
>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>
>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

If either or both of Edward IV's sons were still alive after Bosworth, which
is probably true, Titulus Regius being repealed relegitimised them - they
then had a theoretically stronger claim than their sister.

If the survivors then reproduced legitimately, there is a senior line. The
best known hypotheses are "Perkin", who is rumoured two have had a child or
two (surnamed Perkins and hidden in Wales?), whilst "Richard of Eastwell"
was prevented from procreating.

The 1702 Act of Settlement would have disqualified this line if they had
been Catholics. Edward IV's sons were Catholics but their putative
descendants by 1702 might not have been. The Act, however, also designated
the Electress of Hanover's family as heirs, given that:
William was a childless widower, unwilling to remarry, Anne had lost all her
children and was unable to have more,

It could be argued that any hypothetical descendants of Edward IV's sons
would be ineligible anyway, yet the Act was passed under descendants of the
usurping Tydder.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all


> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the
> bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>
>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian
>> furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn
>> (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly
>> because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's
> not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his
> relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's
> nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward
> himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would
> be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the
> Beauforts).
>
> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her
> successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more
> open-minded.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Well even if it could be proven that the boys survived or that Perkin was really one of them and the descendants of either/all of them were found, I don't think anyone would want them on the throne now instead of the Queen.  It would be fascinating in an academic sense (and pro9ve Richard innocent of ocurse) but it's too late. 
 
Liz
(whose mother was a Perkins and whose father (NOT a Perkins) was from Wales ....


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 19:38
Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all

 
If either or both of Edward IV's sons were still alive after Bosworth, which
is probably true, Titulus Regius being repealed relegitimised them - they
then had a theoretically stronger claim than their sister.

If the survivors then reproduced legitimately, there is a senior line. The
best known hypotheses are "Perkin", who is rumoured two have had a child or
two (surnamed Perkins and hidden in Wales?), whilst "Richard of Eastwell"
was prevented from procreating.

The 1702 Act of Settlement would have disqualified this line if they had
been Catholics. Edward IV's sons were Catholics but their putative
descendants by 1702 might not have been. The Act, however, also designated
the Electress of Hanover's family as heirs, given that:
William was a childless widower, unwilling to remarry, Anne had lost all her
children and was unable to have more,

It could be argued that any hypothetical descendants of Edward IV's sons
would be ineligible anyway, yet the Act was passed under descendants of the
usurping Tydder.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pamela Bain" mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all

> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the
> bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67"
> mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.commailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>
>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian
>> furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn
>> (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly
>> because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's
> not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his
> relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's
> nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward
> himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would
> be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the
> Beauforts).
>
> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her
> successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more
> open-minded.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

liz williams wrote:

"Well even if it could be proven that the boys survived or that Perkin was
really one of them and the descendants of either/all of them were found, I
don't think anyone would want them on the throne now instead of the Queen.
It would be fascinating in an academic sense (and pro9ve Richard innocent of
ocurse) but it's too late."

I recall reading somewhere that, if one strictly and only by primogeniture,
there were something like 50 or 60 people with a better claim to the throne
than the present Queen? I wouldn't be surprised if that number was 'way off,
but I DO remember most were ineligible because they were RC.
Wouldn't the costs of any such testing have to come from the Queen's own
funds (Privy Purse? Household?)? Done properly, I would imagine such testing
would be very expensive, with an excellent chance of not proving anything.
This is assuming, of course, that this matter has even been mentioned to the
Queen. Does anyone know if it has?
Doug

Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
Paul

On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:

> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> "Sir" George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>> G
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>
>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

According  to "1000 years of annoying the French" (a fun read) the first Guillotine-type device was created in the north of England.

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:06
Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all

 
Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
Paul

On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:

> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>
>

Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all



Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
Paul

On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:

> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> "Sir" George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>> G
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>
>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>
> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> > "Sir" George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
> >
> >> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
> >>>
> >>> Carol responds:
> >>>
> >>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
> >>>
> >>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
> >>>
> >>> Carol
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

People lips continue to move after being guillotined...what if your brain stays alive long enough to know that your head has parted company with the rest of you...? I guess we will never know...how awful...Eileen
On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:46, George Butterfield wrote:

> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
>> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>
>>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
>>> "Sir" George
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>>>
>>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd?  Ouch!!  Sorry Hilary 



________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>
> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> > "Sir" George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
> >
> >> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
> >>>
> >>> Carol responds:
> >>>
> >>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
> >>>
> >>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
> >>>
> >>> Carol
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

We obviously read the same stuff Eileen!  H



________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

 

People lips continue to move after being guillotined...what if your brain stays alive long enough to know that your head has parted company with the rest of you...? I guess we will never know...how awful...Eileen
On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:46, George Butterfield wrote:

> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
>> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>
>>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
>>> "Sir" George
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>>>
>>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Lol.......
On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:14, Hilary Jones wrote:

> We obviously read the same stuff Eileen! H
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:51
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>
> People lips continue to move after being guillotined...what if your brain stays alive long enough to know that your head has parted company with the rest of you...? I guess we will never know...how awful...Eileen
> On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:46, George Butterfield wrote:
>
> > How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> > On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> >> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
> >>
> >> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >>
> >>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> >>> "Sir" George
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> >>>> G
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Carol responds:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Carol
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I think it was Charlotte Corday whose face  the executioner slapped as he held her head up for the crowd and allegedly her cheeks went red or something along those lines.


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 15:12
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

 
Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd?  Ouch!!  Sorry Hilary 

________________________________
From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:

> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>
> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.comgbutterf1@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> > "Sir" George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.comgbutterf1@...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.comjustcarol67@...>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
> >>>
> >>> Carol responds:
> >>>
> >>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
> >>>
> >>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
> >>>
> >>> Carol
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yep that's it Liz. It revolted them (at last)!



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:22
Subject: Re: film or video for us all


 

I think it was Charlotte Corday whose face  the executioner slapped as he held her head up for the crowd and allegedly her cheeks went red or something along those lines.

From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 15:12
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

 
Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd?  Ouch!!  Sorry Hilary 

________________________________
From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:

> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>
> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> > "Sir" George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" mailto:mailto:justcarol67%2540yahoo.comjustcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
> >>>
> >>> Carol responds:
> >>>
> >>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
> >>>
> >>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
> >>>
> >>> Carol
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

It didnt revolt the Nazis who guillotined and young German student Sophie Scholl for distributing anti-war leaflets at university in 1943...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yep that's it Liz. It revolted them (at last)!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: ""
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:22
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>  
>
> I think it was Charlotte Corday whose face  the executioner slapped as he held her head up for the crowd and allegedly her cheeks went red or something along those lines.
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 15:12
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>  
> Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd?  Ouch!!  Sorry Hilary 
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> > Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> > The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> > Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> > > "Sir" George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> > >> G
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPad
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" mailto:mailto:justcarol67%2540yahoo.comjustcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
> > >>>
> > >>> Carol responds:
> > >>>
> > >>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
> > >>>
> > >>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
> > >>>
> > >>> Carol
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I was quite surprised when i discovered that they used it.  Have you read Hans Fallada's "Alone in Berlin"?.  It's based on a man who was sent to the Nazi guillotine.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 18:46
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

 
It didnt revolt the Nazis who guillotined and young German student Sophie Scholl for distributing anti-war leaflets at university in 1943...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yep that's it Liz. It revolted them (at last)!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:22
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>  
>
> I think it was Charlotte Corday whose face  the executioner slapped as he held her head up for the crowd and allegedly her cheeks went red or something along those lines.
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 15:12
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>  
> Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd?  Ouch!!  Sorry Hilary 
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> > Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> > The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> > Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> > > "Sir" George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> > >> G
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPad
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" mailto:mailto:justcarol67%2540yahoo.comjustcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
> > >>>
> > >>> Carol responds:
> > >>>
> > >>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
> > >>>
> > >>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
> > >>>
> > >>> Carol
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yew I know, but the Halifax Gibbet is ugly! And apparently not as efficient. Ghastly thought! :-)
Paul

Paul

On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:41, Stephen Lark wrote:

> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>
> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
>> "Sir" George
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>
>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>>> G
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>>
>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>
>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>>
>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>>
>>>> Carol
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Experience mon cher monsieur!
paul

On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:46, George Butterfield wrote:

> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
>> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>
>>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
>>> "Sir" George
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>>>
>>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

OT as the topic is is,
the Terror ended when some terrorists with far bloodier hands felt personally threatened by Robespierre, who knew he had to end it, but couldn't work out how. His execution was followed by a ghastly shedding of blood with more heads falling each day than on any other. Then the Revolution veered rapidly back to the right, and many of the gains made with so much blood were lost.
Corday's check blushing when slapped by Sanson after her beheading, not lips moving, had nothing to do with it.
Paul
[my other passion the French Revolution.]

On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:12, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd? Ouch!! Sorry Hilary
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
>> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>
>>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
>>> "Sir" George
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>>>
>>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Sorry Hilary that's nonsense!
You do not sit by the guillotine watching the executions and get revolted by a blushing cheek!
Salut et fraternité
Paul

On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:28, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Yep that's it Liz. It revolted them (at last)!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:22
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>
>
> I think it was Charlotte Corday whose face the executioner slapped as he held her head up for the crowd and allegedly her cheeks went red or something along those lines.
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 15:12
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
> Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd? Ouch!! Sorry Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
>> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>
>>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
>>> "Sir" George
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" mailto:mailto:justcarol67%2540yahoo.comjustcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>>>
>>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Sanson? I thought his name was Malabonce.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: film or video for us all



OT as the topic is is,
the Terror ended when some terrorists with far bloodier hands felt personally threatened by Robespierre, who knew he had to end it, but couldn't work out how. His execution was followed by a ghastly shedding of blood with more heads falling each day than on any other. Then the Revolution veered rapidly back to the right, and many of the gains made with so much blood were lost.
Corday's check blushing when slapped by Sanson after her beheading, not lips moving, had nothing to do with it.
Paul
[my other passion the French Revolution.]

On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:12, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd? Ouch!! Sorry Hilary
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
>> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>
>>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
>>> "Sir" George
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>>>
>>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Sorry, I meant it revolted the mob - didn't the French carry on with it as punishment for murder (privately) until well into last century? 



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 20:10
Subject: Re: film or video for us all


 

I was quite surprised when i discovered that they used it.  Have you read Hans Fallada's "Alone in Berlin"?.  It's based on a man who was sent to the Nazi guillotine.

________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 18:46
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

 
It didnt revolt the Nazis who guillotined and young German student Sophie Scholl for distributing anti-war leaflets at university in 1943...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yep that's it Liz. It revolted them (at last)!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:22
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>  
>
> I think it was Charlotte Corday whose face  the executioner slapped as he held her head up for the crowd and allegedly her cheeks went red or something along those lines.
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 15:12
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>  
> Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd?  Ouch!!  Sorry Hilary 
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> > Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> > The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> > Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> > > "Sir" George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> > >> G
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPad
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" mailto:mailto:justcarol67%2540yahoo.comjustcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
> > >>>
> > >>> Carol responds:
> > >>>
> > >>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
> > >>>
> > >>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
> > >>>
> > >>> Carol
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
Paul

Do you Americans get that?

On 25 Jan 2013, at 20:52, Stephen Lark wrote:

> Sanson? I thought his name was Malabonce.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>
> OT as the topic is is,
> the Terror ended when some terrorists with far bloodier hands felt personally threatened by Robespierre, who knew he had to end it, but couldn't work out how. His execution was followed by a ghastly shedding of blood with more heads falling each day than on any other. Then the Revolution veered rapidly back to the right, and many of the gains made with so much blood were lost.
> Corday's check blushing when slapped by Sanson after her beheading, not lips moving, had nothing to do with it.
> Paul
> [my other passion the French Revolution.]
>
> On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:12, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
>> Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd? Ouch!! Sorry Hilary
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
>> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
>>> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>>>
>>> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
>>>> "Sir" George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>>>>> G
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" [email protected]@...>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

It remained the French and Belgian means of capital punishment until the 1950s. It was in public right up to the early years of the 20th century, and there is film of more than one such from the last few.
Dickens saw an execution and wrote about his repulsion at the amount of blood.
During the Terror the residents of the area around what is now the Place de La Concorde, then Place de La Revolution, complained to the Committees about the smell and the numerous animals attracted by blood, and the guillotine was moved to the outskirts of the city, though it was brought back for the "special" executions, like the King and Queen, and Danton.
Paul

On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:12, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Sorry, I meant it revolted the mob - didn't the French carry on with it as punishment for murder (privately) until well into last century?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 20:10
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>
>
> I was quite surprised when i discovered that they used it. Have you read Hans Fallada's "Alone in Berlin"?. It's based on a man who was sent to the Nazi guillotine.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 18:46
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
> It didnt revolt the Nazis who guillotined and young German student Sophie Scholl for distributing anti-war leaflets at university in 1943...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Yep that's it Liz. It revolted them (at last)!
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: liz williams
>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
>> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:22
>> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I think it was Charlotte Corday whose face  the executioner slapped as he held her head up for the crowd and allegedly her cheeks went red or something along those lines.
>>
>> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 15:12
>> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> Â
>> Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd? Ouch!! Sorry HilaryÂ
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
>> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
>>> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
>>>
>>> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
>>>> "Sir" George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
>>>>> G
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" mailto:mailto:justcarol67%2540yahoo.comjustcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
> Paul
>
> Do you Americans get that?

Carol responds:

In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.

By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)

Carol

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> It remained the French and Belgian means of capital punishment until the 1950s. It was in public right up to the early years of the 20th century, and there is film of more than one such from the last few.
> Dickens saw an execution and wrote about his repulsion at the amount of blood.
> During the Terror the residents of the area around what is now the Place de La Concorde, then Place de La Revolution, complained to the Committees about the smell and the numerous animals attracted by blood, and the guillotine was moved to the outskirts of the city, though it was brought back for the "special" executions, like the King and Queen, and Danton.

Carol:

And people call Richard's four executions while he was Protector a "slaughter." Where is their perspective?

Carol, asking too many rhetorical questions today

Nope, but then we do have different words for many things and different sayings. No idea as to why....
Torch = Flashlight
Lift = Elevator
Lorry = Truck

Brits say "in hospital" and we say "in the hospital". That is what makes it so very interesting. But hen, in my reading and travel in Britain, I have noticed marked differences in speech, intonation, accents, etc. based in region and class.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:19 AM
To:
Subject: Re: film or video for us all



Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
> Paul
>
> Do you Americans get that?

Carol responds:

In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.

By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)

Carol

Churchill summed it all up when he addressed Congress "America and Britain are the same country separated by a common language"
George

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Nope, but then we do have different words for many things and different sayings. No idea as to why....
> Torch = Flashlight
> Lift = Elevator
> Lorry = Truck
>
> Brits say "in hospital" and we say "in the hospital". That is what makes it so very interesting. But hen, in my reading and travel in Britain, I have noticed marked differences in speech, intonation, accents, etc. based in region and class.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:19 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
> > Paul
> >
> > Do you Americans get that?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.
>
> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

Off subject, once again, but in my humble opinion, Winston Churchill was one of the finest minds and most interesting characters in the 20th Century.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:04 AM
To:
Subject: Re: film or video for us all



Churchill summed it all up when he addressed Congress "America and Britain are the same country separated by a common language"
George

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> Nope, but then we do have different words for many things and different sayings. No idea as to why....
> Torch = Flashlight
> Lift = Elevator
> Lorry = Truck
>
> Brits say "in hospital" and we say "in the hospital". That is what makes it so very interesting. But hen, in my reading and travel in Britain, I have noticed marked differences in speech, intonation, accents, etc. based in region and class.
>
> ________________________________
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:19 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
> > Paul
> >
> > Do you Americans get that?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.
>
> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair cut say like an army cut.
So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
Paul

On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:

> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>> Paul
>>
>> Do you Americans get that?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.
>
> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I like it, and will keep that in mind! Thank you for the information.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:28 PM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair cut say like an army cut.
So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
Paul

On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:

> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>> Paul
>>
>> Do you Americans get that?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.
>
> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: film or video for us all



Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair cut say like an army cut.
So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
Paul

On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:

> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>> Paul
>>
>> Do you Americans get that?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.
>
> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

The 1930's or 40's????

On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark@...>> wrote:



Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: film or video for us all

Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair cut say like an army cut.
So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
Paul

On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:

> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>> Paul
>>
>> Do you Americans get that?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.
>
> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Try to explain "a little something for the weekend sir?"
G

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> I like it, and will keep that in mind! Thank you for the information.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:28 PM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair cut say like an army cut.
> So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
> Paul
>
> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
>
>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Do you Americans get that?
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.
>>
>> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The 1960s! It was a line from the film "Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head",
spoken by le Duc de Pommes Frites (Charles Hawtrey) - a satire on the French
Revolution.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: film or video for us all


> The 1930's or 40's????
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
> Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair
> cut say like an army cut.
> So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
> Paul
>
> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
>
>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Do you Americans get that?
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a
>> sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might
>> refer to a haircut.
>>
>> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the
>> British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"?
>> Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

le Duc de Pommes Frites!...priceless! Seriously OT here but can anyone think of anything funnier than Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleopatra (I think) as Caeser crying out "Infamy, Infamy...they've all got it in for me.." Hilarious...Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The 1960s! It was a line from the film "Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head",
> spoken by le Duc de Pommes Frites (Charles Hawtrey) - a satire on the French
> Revolution.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Bain"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
> > The 1930's or 40's????
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To:
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> > Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair
> > cut say like an army cut.
> > So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> Do you Americans get that?
> >>
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a
> >> sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might
> >> refer to a haircut.
> >>
> >> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the
> >> British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"?
> >> Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Carry on Cleo has many outstanding moments. My favourite is Brutus corpsing during Caesar's Churchillian speech to the Senate. Or Calpurnia explaining to Caesar what they do in Egypt. Knocked down? It's better than being knocked up!


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 21:40
Subject: Re: film or video for us all


 
le Duc de Pommes Frites!...priceless! Seriously OT here but can anyone think of anything funnier than Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleopatra (I think) as Caeser crying out "Infamy, Infamy...they've all got it in for me.." Hilarious...Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The 1960s! It was a line from the film "Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head",
> spoken by le Duc de Pommes Frites (Charles Hawtrey) - a satire on the French
> Revolution.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Bain"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
> > The 1930's or 40's????
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To:
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> > Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair
> > cut say like an army cut.
> > So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> Do you Americans get that?
> >>
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a
> >> sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might
> >> refer to a haircut.
> >>
> >> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the
> >> British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"?
> >> Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Ah....they don't make 'em like that any more....but I only had to look at Kenneth Williams to laugh....:0)

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Carry on Cleo has many outstanding moments. My favourite is Brutus corpsing during Caesar's Churchillian speech to the Senate. Or Calpurnia explaining to Caesar what they do in Egypt. Knocked down? It's better than being knocked up!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 21:40
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>  
> le Duc de Pommes Frites!...priceless! Seriously OT here but can anyone think of anything funnier than Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleopatra (I think) as Caeser crying out "Infamy, Infamy...they've all got it in for me.." Hilarious...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > The 1960s! It was a line from the film "Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head",
> > spoken by le Duc de Pommes Frites (Charles Hawtrey) - a satire on the French
> > Revolution.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pamela Bain"
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> >
> > > The 1930's or 40's????
> > >
> > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To:
> > >
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> > >
> > > Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair
> > > cut say like an army cut.
> > > So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
> > >
> > >> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you Americans get that?
> > >>
> > >> Carol responds:
> > >>
> > >> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a
> > >> sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might
> > >> refer to a haircut.
> > >>
> > >> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the
> > >> British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"?
> > >> Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
> > >>
> > >> Carol
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I went on Google and saw an interview of Stephen Frey by Kenneth Williams. It was hilarious!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 26, 2013, at 3:40 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



le Duc de Pommes Frites!...priceless! Seriously OT here but can anyone think of anything funnier than Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleopatra (I think) as Caeser crying out "Infamy, Infamy...they've all got it in for me.." Hilarious...Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The 1960s! It was a line from the film "Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head",
> spoken by le Duc de Pommes Frites (Charles Hawtrey) - a satire on the French
> Revolution.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Bain"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
> > The 1930's or 40's????
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> > Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair
> > cut say like an army cut.
> > So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> Do you Americans get that?
> >>
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a
> >> sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might
> >> refer to a haircut.
> >>
> >> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the
> >> British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"?
> >> Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Oooh you are awful, but go on then..........black fingernail you!
Paul

On 26 Jan 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Lark wrote:

> Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>
> Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair cut say like an army cut.
> So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
> Paul
>
> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
>
>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Do you Americans get that?
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.
>>
>> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

No way!
Is there anything in any version of English outside the Uk that gets double entendres Carry On style?
Paul

On 26 Jan 2013, at 21:19, George Butterfield wrote:

> Try to explain "a little something for the weekend sir?"
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
>> I like it, and will keep that in mind! Thank you for the information.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:28 PM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair cut say like an army cut.
>> So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Do you Americans get that?
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might refer to a haircut.
>>>
>>> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"? Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

To be nit picky, a satire on the Scarlet Pimpernel books, not the French Revolution as such, only Baroness Orzcy's strange version of it.
Paul

On 26 Jan 2013, at 21:31, Stephen Lark wrote:

> The 1960s! It was a line from the film "Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head",
> spoken by le Duc de Pommes Frites (Charles Hawtrey) - a satire on the French
> Revolution.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>> The 1930's or 40's????
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark"
>> <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>> To:
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair
>> cut say like an army cut.
>> So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Do you Americans get that?
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a
>>> sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might
>>> refer to a haircut.
>>>
>>> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the
>>> British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"?
>>> Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

The line from the one I worked on that the censor wouldn't let us have.
Hattie Jacques has struggled to put her tent up. Williams comes along to comfort here with the words "Ah well Matron, the erection is fairly simple. It's getting it to stay up that counts!"
Paul

On 26 Jan 2013, at 21:40, EileenB wrote:

> le Duc de Pommes Frites!...priceless! Seriously OT here but can anyone think of anything funnier than Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleopatra (I think) as Caeser crying out "Infamy, Infamy...they've all got it in for me.." Hilarious...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>>
>> The 1960s! It was a line from the film "Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head",
>> spoken by le Duc de Pommes Frites (Charles Hawtrey) - a satire on the French
>> Revolution.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Pamela Bain"
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>>
>>> The 1930's or 40's????
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark"
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> To:
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
>>> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>>>
>>> Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair
>>> cut say like an army cut.
>>> So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you Americans get that?
>>>>
>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>
>>>> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a
>>>> sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might
>>>> refer to a haircut.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the
>>>> British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"?
>>>> Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>>>>
>>>> Carol
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

........ just as "Follow that camel" was a satire on "Beau Geste". The historical and literary parodies were easily the best.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: film or video for us all



To be nit picky, a satire on the Scarlet Pimpernel books, not the French Revolution as such, only Baroness Orzcy's strange version of it.
Paul

On 26 Jan 2013, at 21:31, Stephen Lark wrote:

> The 1960s! It was a line from the film "Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head",
> spoken by le Duc de Pommes Frites (Charles Hawtrey) - a satire on the French
> Revolution.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Bain" pbain@...>
> To: >
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>
>
>> The 1930's or 40's????
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark"
>> stephenmlark@...@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>> To:
>>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
>>
>> Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair
>> cut say like an army cut.
>> So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Do you Americans get that?
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a
>>> sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might
>>> refer to a haircut.
>>>
>>> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the
>>> British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"?
>>> Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

This is so OT...but I have just had a mental image of Charles Hawtrey playing the Weasle....!!!
On 27 Jan 2013, at 10:34, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

> The line from the one I worked on that the censor wouldn't let us have.
> Hattie Jacques has struggled to put her tent up. Williams comes along to comfort here with the words "Ah well Matron, the erection is fairly simple. It's getting it to stay up that counts!"
> Paul
>
> On 26 Jan 2013, at 21:40, EileenB wrote:
>
> > le Duc de Pommes Frites!...priceless! Seriously OT here but can anyone think of anything funnier than Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleopatra (I think) as Caeser crying out "Infamy, Infamy...they've all got it in for me.." Hilarious...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >>
> >> The 1960s! It was a line from the film "Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head",
> >> spoken by le Duc de Pommes Frites (Charles Hawtrey) - a satire on the French
> >> Revolution.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Pamela Bain"
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:09 PM
> >> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> >>
> >>
> >>> The 1930's or 40's????
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "Stephen Lark"
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Shall we tell them when the full remark was made?;
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >>> To:
> >>>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:28 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> >>>
> >>> Short back and sides is what a man tells his barber if he wants his hair
> >>> cut say like an army cut.
> >>> So saying it to the executioner is very funny to us Brits!
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:19, justcarol67 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sort back and sides. Not too much off the top!:-)
> >>>>> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you Americans get that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Carol responds:
> >>>>
> >>>> In a word, no. My first reaction was "huh"? My second was, "Oh. It's a
> >>>> sports reference--probably soccer, er, football." Then again, it might
> >>>> refer to a haircut.
> >>>>
> >>>> By the way, have you ever noticed that Americans say "sports" and the
> >>>> British say "sport," but Americans say "math" and Brits say "maths"?
> >>>> Where is the logic in that? (Rhetorical question and OT, too.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Carol
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>

I believe the correct thing to do was to knit and sew in the days names on a scarf
G

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> Sorry Hilary that's nonsense!
> You do not sit by the guillotine watching the executions and get revolted by a blushing cheek!
> Salut et fraternité
> Paul
>
> On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:28, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Yep that's it Liz. It revolted them (at last)!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:22
> > Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it was Charlotte Corday whose face the executioner slapped as he held her head up for the crowd and allegedly her cheeks went red or something along those lines.
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 15:12
> > Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> >
> > Didn't they reckon that guillotining was so fast that people's brains (and lips) were still working? In fact isn't that one of the things that brought an end to the Terror - when some poor girl's lips (was it Charlotte Corday) were still seen to be moving as her head was waived at the crowd? Ouch!! Sorry Hilary
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:46
> > Subject: Re: film or video for us all
> >
> > How do you know that it is least painful? Bit late to find out once its over?
> > On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Very British, Paul - google "Halifax Gibbet";)
> >> The French version was just shorter and had a diagonal blade.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Re: film or video for us all
> >>
> >> Not very British but guillotining is the fastest and least painful method!
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:52, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >>
> >>> Kind lady, but no beheading I hope!
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Why!" thank you kind sir you can come to my beheading!
> >>> "Sir" George
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I shall pray for your Knighthood!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "George Butterfield" mailto:mailto:gbutterf1%2540yahoo.comgbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That is a very good question, however we are not privileged to the mindset of HRH if I get a knighthood it will be on my list!
> >>>> G
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> OK, newbie asks dumb question......Why would the Queen ban access to the bones? Surely, some 500 years later, the throne of Elizabeth II is safe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "justcarol67" mailto:mailto:justcarol67%2540yahoo.comjustcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is plenty of information about Michael Ibsen, the Canadian furniture maker who should share Richard's mtDNA. The bones in the urn (whether found under the stairs or not) cannot be analysed properly because scientists are not allowed access to them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Carol responds:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oddly, no one mentions that Ibsen has a living brother and sister, so he's not the last source of mitochondrial DNA. However, his DNA (or that of his relatives) would not help to identify the bones in the urn since Richard's nephews did not share his mitochondrial DNA. However, assuming that Edward himself was legitimate, they would share his Y chromosome, so there would be no need for a male-line descendant of the Plantagenets (via the Beauforts).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you say, the queen bans access to the bones in the urn, but maybe her successor (influenced by the Duke of Gloucester?) will be more open-minded.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Carol
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>