Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:

"Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
"Regards, Annette"

Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.

Carol

Oh no! That does not sound very promising! What about the R3 society in US? Why are they not doing anything about it?
This was our one chance to get Richard in the limelight he deserves and the doc has managed to screwed that up??




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)


 
Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:

"Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
"Regards, Annette"

Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.

Carol

Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean?  The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
 
 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

 
Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:

"Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
"Regards, Annette"

Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.

Carol

Poop, that is what the world wants to know! If they find some little bodies in the Tower, then worry about the Princes.


On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:20 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)


Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:

"Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
"Regards, Annette"

Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.

Carol

Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological  documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
Ishita




________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)


 
Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean?  The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
 
 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

 
Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:

"Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
"Regards, Annette"

Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.

Carol

Pamela, they did find bones for children at the tower in the 1600s. If the current monarch just let the scientists examine the bones, we will find the answer to the riddle! Why she doesn't is beyond me.... No that I am trying to insult EII but it is dang strange!Maybe Charles will. Or William.




________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Poop, that is what the world wants to know! If they find some little bodies in the Tower, then worry about the Princes.


On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:20 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean?  The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)


Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:

"Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
"Regards, Annette"

Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.

Carol











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I agree about the bones and everything else that is off limits!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:29 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Pamela, they did find bones for children at the tower in the 1600s. If the current monarch just let the scientists examine the bones, we will find the answer to the riddle! Why she doesn't is beyond me.... No that I am trying to insult EII but it is dang strange!Maybe Charles will. Or William.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Poop, that is what the world wants to know! If they find some little bodies in the Tower, then worry about the Princes.

On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:20 PM, "liz williams" ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>> wrote:

Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:

"Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
"Regards, Annette"

Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.

Carol





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Everyone

I'll try again!! I've posted this once but it seems to have got lost in
the depths of the internet:(( Apologies if it comes up later!

I sent this out to the Branches/ Groups tonight.

*****

The television listings for next week have now been published and
attached is a selection of extracts relating to the 'King in the Car
Park
Programme' to be shown on Channel 4 on Monday at 9 p.m.
 
Please note that the Radio Times listing of a Time Team special with
Tony Robinson asking if a 'Leicester skeleton has regal roots' is
totally incorrect. The programme will presented by Simon Farnaby.

****

I have heard that the programme will have world wide distribution some
time in the future so there is hope! Meanwhile keep a close eye on You
Tube as most things seem to turn up there eventually.

cheers

Jac

Its part of the culture of secrecy that dominates the British establishment. If the bones proved that Edward IV was illegitimate, they probably wouldn't let the info come out.
Paranoid, perhaps, but protecting the reputation of the monarchy, around which the entire system is built, is the first priority of HMG.

A study of the royal bones in Winchester cathedral is also long overdue.


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:35
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

I agree about the bones and everything else that is off limits!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:29 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Pamela, they did find bones for children at the tower in the 1600s. If the current monarch just let the scientists examine the bones, we will find the answer to the riddle! Why she doesn't is beyond me.... No that I am trying to insult EII but it is dang strange!Maybe Charles will. Or William.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Poop, that is what the world wants to know! If they find some little bodies in the Tower, then worry about the Princes.

On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:20 PM, "liz williams" ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>> wrote:

Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean?  The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:

"Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
"Regards, Annette"

Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.

Carol





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

Yahoo! Groups Links











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen it before we start screaming?:-)
Please?
Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been nowhere near it!
On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:

> Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> Ishita
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
>
>
> Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
>
> Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
>
> "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> "Regards, Annette"
>
> Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I am know to over react! Sorry.

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen it before we start screaming?:-)
> Please?
> Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been nowhere near it!
> On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > Ishita
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> >
> >
> >
> > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> >
> >
> > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
> >
> > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > "Regards, Annette"
> >
> > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>

Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words! Sorry for all the mistakes!

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> I am know to over react! Sorry.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen it before we start screaming?:-)
> > Please?
> > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been nowhere near it!
> > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > > To: ">
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > >
> > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > "Regards, Annette"
> > >
> > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the time I think we all get the correct meaning.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words! Sorry for all the mistakes!

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> I am know to over react! Sorry.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>> wrote:
>
> > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen it before we start screaming?:-)
> > Please?
> > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been nowhere near it!
> > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
> > > To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>@yahoogroups.com<http://yahoogroups.com>>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > >
> > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > "Regards, Annette"
> > >
> > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone

Carol responds:

I guess PCs and even laptops are becoming obsolete? I hope not! At least Yahoo asks me with red squiggles if I've made a typo rather than changing it for me!

BTW, Pam, it suggests ban, brain, barn, rain, and bail for Bain!

Carol

Actually some did call the office once and ask for P Brain! I figured that correct in both senses.....

On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone

Carol responds:

I guess PCs and even laptops are becoming obsolete? I hope not! At least Yahoo asks me with red squiggles if I've made a typo rather than changing it for me!

BTW, Pam, it suggests ban, brain, barn, rain, and bail for Bain!

Carol

Oh gods, I hope the documentary doesn't go the way the ones in the States are *required* to go per the production company owners, if the subject is "controversial". What comes to mind are the UFO documentaries that have to play the "They're not real" card along with the "They're real" card to please all comers and snarkers.

Is this yet another production that's going to ride the fence, with one expert saying, "Of course it's the king," and another saying, "It's not been proven to be the king," while the summing-up at the end says, "We've presented the evidence as we know it; make up your own mind"?

~Weds


--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
>
> "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> "Regards, Annette"
>
> Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
>
> Carol
>

liz williams wrote:


"Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing."

As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
of them! Pity that...
Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
"reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
"murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
Doug

I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)







liz williams wrote:

"Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing."

As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
of them! Pity that...
Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
"reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
"murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
Doug

All the programs on Richard starts with " most controversial king" or " notorious king". That's what makes me cringe! Why not start with " the king who introduced the concept of bail"?
I don't think this program should go into any arguments at all. Just stay with the science.
As an aside, in a Facebook page called In Bed With Tudors, a subscriber called the Ricardians " scary people"! I have been snarky since then:/

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

On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

> I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
> To: >
> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
> liz williams wrote:
>
> "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
> think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
> programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
> kind of thing."
>
> As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
> actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
> I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
> than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
> few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
> of them! Pity that...
> Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
> background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
> "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
> "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
> what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
> Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
> Doug
>
>
>
>

Ishita

Richard didn't introduce the concept of bail, that was well established.
What his parliament did was extend bail to felonies. But I take your point,
it would be nice to watch something that started from a neutral position.

Karen

From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:10:35 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)






All the programs on Richard starts with " most controversial king" or "
notorious king". That's what makes me cringe! Why not start with " the king
who introduced the concept of bail"?
I don't think this program should go into any arguments at all. Just stay
with the science.
As an aside, in a Facebook page called In Bed With Tudors, a subscriber
called the Ricardians " scary people"! I have been snarky since then:/

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

On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

> I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...
<mailto:destama%40kconline.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
> liz williams wrote:
>
> "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
> think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
> programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
> kind of thing."
>
> As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
> actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
> I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
> than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
> few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
> of them! Pity that...
> Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
> background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
> "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
> "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
> what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
> Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
> Doug
>
>
>
>

My bad. But you know what I mean. I am just feeling dejected that the negativity will never go away......


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:23 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

> Ishita
>
> Richard didn't introduce the concept of bail, that was well established.
> What his parliament did was extend bail to felonies. But I take your point,
> it would be nice to watch something that started from a neutral position.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:10:35 -0500
> To: ""
> >
> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
> All the programs on Richard starts with " most controversial king" or "
> notorious king". That's what makes me cringe! Why not start with " the king
> who introduced the concept of bail"?
> I don't think this program should go into any arguments at all. Just stay
> with the science.
> As an aside, in a Facebook page called In Bed With Tudors, a subscriber
> called the Ricardians " scary people"! I have been snarky since then:/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> > wrote:
>
> > I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...
> >
> > Reply-To:
> >
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
> > To:
> >
> > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> > in U.S. (not encouraging)
> >
> > liz williams wrote:
> >
> > "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
> > think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
> > programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
> > kind of thing."
> >
> > As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
> > actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
> > I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
> > than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
> > few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
> > of them! Pity that...
> > Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
> > background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
> > "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
> > "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
> > what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
> > Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's a common misunderstanding, Ishita, so no worries! I'm hoping the
upcoming program has some balance to it, even it's more favourable than not.
I've been dreading a whitewash, to be honest.

Karen

From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:39:22 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)






My bad. But you know what I mean. I am just feeling dejected that the
negativity will never go away......

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:23 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

> Ishita
>
> Richard didn't introduce the concept of bail, that was well established.
> What his parliament did was extend bail to felonies. But I take your point,
> it would be nice to watch something that started from a neutral position.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:10:35 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
> All the programs on Richard starts with " most controversial king" or "
> notorious king". That's what makes me cringe! Why not start with " the king
> who introduced the concept of bail"?
> I don't think this program should go into any arguments at all. Just stay
> with the science.
> As an aside, in a Facebook page called In Bed With Tudors, a subscriber
> called the Ricardians " scary people"! I have been snarky since then:/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...
<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> >
> > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> > in U.S. (not encouraging)
> >
> > liz williams wrote:
> >
> > "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
> > think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
> > programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
> > kind of thing."
> >
> > As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
> > actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
> > I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
> > than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
> > few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
> > of them! Pity that...
> > Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
> > background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
> > "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
> > "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
> > what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
> > Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

You don't have to worry about whitewash! They won't do it. The media would make him look more black than white.


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

> It's a common misunderstanding, Ishita, so no worries! I'm hoping the
> upcoming program has some balance to it, even it's more favourable than not.
> I've been dreading a whitewash, to be honest.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:39:22 -0500
> To: ""
> >
> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
> My bad. But you know what I mean. I am just feeling dejected that the
> negativity will never go away......
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:23 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> > wrote:
>
> > Ishita
> >
> > Richard didn't introduce the concept of bail, that was well established.
> > What his parliament did was extend bail to felonies. But I take your point,
> > it would be nice to watch something that started from a neutral position.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > Reply-To:
> >
> > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:10:35 -0500
> > To: "
>
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> > in U.S. (not encouraging)
> >
> > All the programs on Richard starts with " most controversial king" or "
> > notorious king". That's what makes me cringe! Why not start with " the king
> > who introduced the concept of bail"?
> > I don't think this program should go into any arguments at all. Just stay
> > with the science.
> > As an aside, in a Facebook page called In Bed With Tudors, a subscriber
> > called the Ricardians " scary people"! I have been snarky since then:/
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...
>
> > >
> > > Reply-To:
>
> > >
> > > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
> > > To:
>
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> > > in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > >
> > > liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
> > > think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
> > > programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
> > > kind of thing."
> > >
> > > As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
> > > actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
> > > I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
> > > than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
> > > few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
> > > of them! Pity that...
> > > Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
> > > background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
> > > "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
> > > "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
> > > what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
> > > Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ishita

I've been pleasantly surprised that much of the news coverage of the dig,
and Richard's life, has looked a little deeper than the usual 'villain'
stuff. A lot of it's been quite enlightened without going over the top.
You're probably right that the negativity won't ever go away, but that's
life, I guess. A good friend of mine has to daily deal with the nonsense
people believe about Edward II, usually after watching Braveheart. Richard
is well represented in novels, for instance, (sometimes by people who, I
think, stray a little too far to the 'white' side of the black/white divide,
but that's ok, they're quite entitled to). Poor Edward II gets the same old
bile heaped on his head with just about every novel he features in! I think
it says more about people in general than Richard, to be honest. They do so
love a villain!

Karen

From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:59:03 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)






You don't have to worry about whitewash! They won't do it. The media would
make him look more black than white.

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

> It's a common misunderstanding, Ishita, so no worries! I'm hoping the
> upcoming program has some balance to it, even it's more favourable than not.
> I've been dreading a whitewash, to be honest.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:39:22 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
> My bad. But you know what I mean. I am just feeling dejected that the
> negativity will never go away......
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:23 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > Ishita
> >
> > Richard didn't introduce the concept of bail, that was well established.
> > What his parliament did was extend bail to felonies. But I take your point,
> > it would be nice to watch something that started from a neutral position.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:10:35 -0500
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> > in U.S. (not encouraging)
> >
> > All the programs on Richard starts with " most controversial king" or "
> > notorious king". That's what makes me cringe! Why not start with " the king
> > who introduced the concept of bail"?
> > I don't think this program should go into any arguments at all. Just stay
> > with the science.
> > As an aside, in a Facebook page called In Bed With Tudors, a subscriber
> > called the Ricardians " scary people"! I have been snarky since then:/
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...
<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
>
> > >
> > > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > >
> > > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> > > in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > >
> > > liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
> > > think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
> > > programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
> > > kind of thing."
> > >
> > > As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
> > > actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured
in.
> > > I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience
other
> > > than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
> > > few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't
one
> > > of them! Pity that...
> > > Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
> > > background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
> > > "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
> > > "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out
that
> > > what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in
dispute.
> > > Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's a 90 minute slot so there will be 75 minutes of programme. I don't think, if Philippa and John Ashdown Hill are happy with the result, that it will sit on the fence. If it did would there be a special conference being called? Doubt it.
Paul


On 30 Jan 2013, at 04:52, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:

>
> liz williams wrote:
>
>
> "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
> think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
> programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
> kind of thing."
>
> As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
> actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
> I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
> than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
> few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
> of them! Pity that...
> Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
> background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
> "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
> "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
> what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
> Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes, in Winter King all one has to do is look at what Henry used his parliaments for and what Richard did with his. One of the most notorious things was in 1503 when he revived an ancient 'right' known as the feudal aid. This was chiefly to help him pay for the knighting of Prince Arthur and his wedding to Catherine of Aragon, years after the death of the prince! More's eloquent objections shot down the entire idea, though parliament had been deeply shocked by the latest testament to the King's avarice, and his desire to dig into the private lives of his subjects in order to raise yet more funds.
As a lawyer, I wonder if More did the same comparison I did and found there none between what Richard had done and wanted to do, and found Henry deeply wanting in the comparison?
Paul

On 31 Jan 2013, at 04:10, Ishita Bandyo wrote:

> All the programs on Richard starts with " most controversial king" or " notorious king". That's what makes me cringe! Why not start with " the king who introduced the concept of bail"?
> I don't think this program should go into any arguments at all. Just stay with the science.
> As an aside, in a Facebook page called In Bed With Tudors, a subscriber called the Ricardians " scary people"! I have been snarky since then:/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>> I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...>
>> Reply-To: >
>> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
>> To: >
>> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
>> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>>
>> liz williams wrote:
>>
>> "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
>> think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
>> programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
>> kind of thing."
>>
>> As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
>> actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
>> I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
>> than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
>> few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
>> of them! Pity that...
>> Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
>> background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
>> "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
>> "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
>> what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
>> Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Ditto with John.
Paul

On 31 Jan 2013, at 05:08, Karen Clark wrote:

> Ishita
>
> I've been pleasantly surprised that much of the news coverage of the dig,
> and Richard's life, has looked a little deeper than the usual 'villain'
> stuff. A lot of it's been quite enlightened without going over the top.
> You're probably right that the negativity won't ever go away, but that's
> life, I guess. A good friend of mine has to daily deal with the nonsense
> people believe about Edward II, usually after watching Braveheart. Richard
> is well represented in novels, for instance, (sometimes by people who, I
> think, stray a little too far to the 'white' side of the black/white divide,
> but that's ok, they're quite entitled to). Poor Edward II gets the same old
> bile heaped on his head with just about every novel he features in! I think
> it says more about people in general than Richard, to be honest. They do so
> love a villain!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:59:03 -0500
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You don't have to worry about whitewash! They won't do it. The media would
> make him look more black than white.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>
>> It's a common misunderstanding, Ishita, so no worries! I'm hoping the
>> upcoming program has some balance to it, even it's more favourable than not.
>> I've been dreading a whitewash, to be honest.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
>> Reply-To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:39:22 -0500
>> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
>> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>>
>> My bad. But you know what I mean. I am just feeling dejected that the
>> negativity will never go away......
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:23 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ishita
>>>
>>> Richard didn't introduce the concept of bail, that was well established.
>>> What his parliament did was extend bail to felonies. But I take your point,
>>> it would be nice to watch something that started from a neutral position.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
>>> Reply-To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:10:35 -0500
>>> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>
>>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
>>> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>>>
>>> All the programs on Richard starts with " most controversial king" or "
>>> notorious king". That's what makes me cringe! Why not start with " the king
>>> who introduced the concept of bail"?
>>> I don't think this program should go into any arguments at all. Just stay
>>> with the science.
>>> As an aside, in a Facebook page called In Bed With Tudors, a subscriber
>>> called the Ricardians " scary people"! I have been snarky since then:/
>>>
>>> Ishita Bandyo
>>> www.ishitabandyo.com
>>> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
>>> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.
>>>>
>>>> Karen
>>>>
>>>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...
> <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Reply-To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
>>>> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
>>>> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>>>>
>>>> liz williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
>>>> think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
>>>> programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
>>>> kind of thing."
>>>>
>>>> As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
>>>> actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured
> in.
>>>> I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience
> other
>>>> than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
>>>> few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't
> one
>>>> of them! Pity that...
>>>> Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
>>>> background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
>>>> "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
>>>> "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out
> that
>>>> what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in
> dispute.
>>>> Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
>>>> Doug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it) wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says, we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words! Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)



Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it) wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says, we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words! Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)





Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

How comfortable are we going to be without conclusive DNA evidence? There is always going to be that nagging doubt that it might not be him! The same " maybe" that has dogged him for more than 500 years will continue to do so. Also the inconclusive DNA result will give the authorities the chance to give him( if its him) the hole in the ground burial....... I am Miss Negativity these days!


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

On Jan 31, 2013, at 4:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it) wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says, we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he had.
>
> As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted without a strong DNA match. Hilary
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the time I think we all get the correct meaning.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words! Sorry for all the mistakes!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
> >
> > > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > > Please?
> > > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been nowhere near it!
> > > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > > Ishita
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > > Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Hilary, can you tell us more about the seance? I would like to find out more about this! A little while ago we had a discussion here about the supernatural and I found it rather interesting! The YouTube video/audio of Richard's voice was indecipherable to me though:)

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

On Jan 31, 2013, at 4:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it) wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says, we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he had.
>
> As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted without a strong DNA match. Hilary
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the time I think we all get the correct meaning.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words! Sorry for all the mistakes!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
> >
> > > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > > Please?
> > > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been nowhere near it!
> > > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > > Ishita
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > > Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. Just a few words does sew the seeds of doubt, and then that colors whatever else they present. I like snarky....... : )

On Jan 30, 2013, at 10:39 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



My bad. But you know what I mean. I am just feeling dejected that the negativity will never go away......

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:23 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>> wrote:

> Ishita
>
> Richard didn't introduce the concept of bail, that was well established.
> What his parliament did was extend bail to felonies. But I take your point,
> it would be nice to watch something that started from a neutral position.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:10:35 -0500
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> in U.S. (not encouraging)
>
> All the programs on Richard starts with " most controversial king" or "
> notorious king". That's what makes me cringe! Why not start with " the king
> who introduced the concept of bail"?
> I don't think this program should go into any arguments at all. Just stay
> with the science.
> As an aside, in a Facebook page called In Bed With Tudors, a subscriber
> called the Ricardians " scary people"! I have been snarky since then:/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > I'd be happy if it presented both sides of the various arguments clearly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> >
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:52:38 -0600
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
> > in U.S. (not encouraging)
> >
> > liz williams wrote:
> >
> > "Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can
> > think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
> > programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
> > kind of thing."
> >
> > As C4 is commercial, I would imagine there will be about 45 minutes of
> > actual programming once the opening, commercials and credits are figured in.
> > I also imagine the producers are worried about attracting an audience other
> > than those of us already interested in Richard III. I can think of quite a
> > few adjectives and phrases to describe us, but "large in numbers" isn't one
> > of them! Pity that...
> > Some background certainly wouldn't hurt, but much will depend on what that
> > background is. As long as the script uses phrases such as "accused of" or
> > "reported to have...", rather than "did", or worse still "killed" or
> > "murdered" we'll have gone a long way towards just getting the idea out that
> > what the Tudor historians and Shakespeare wrote about Richard is in dispute.
> > Personally, I'd like to see more, but may have to settle for that.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Ishita,
 
See my and Eileen's other posts.  I think you would like the book - even if you don't believe it all.  On the documentary etc all may not be lost. What if the facial re-construction looks like him (and I do think his portraits were quite a good likeness - those of E4 seemed to be when they found another likeness on the continent) and the DNA isn't conclusive - that will be fun? Could be as controversial as the bones in the Abbey. Perhaps that would give us time to get a 'real historian' on board but spare the powers that be expense and dilema of a royal funeral. Cheers Hilary 


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 12:48
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)


 

Hilary, can you tell us more about the seance? I would like to find out more about this! A little while ago we had a discussion here about the supernatural and I found it rather interesting! The YouTube video/audio of Richard's voice was indecipherable to me though:)

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

On Jan 31, 2013, at 4:52 AM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it) wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says, we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he had.
>
> As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted without a strong DNA match. Hilary
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the time I think we all get the correct meaning.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words! Sorry for all the mistakes!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
> >
> > > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > > Please?
> > > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been nowhere near it!
> > > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > > Ishita
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him" kind of thing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > > Subject: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4 documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme! I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least, Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!
 


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

 

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To be fair to them it was guys who went to Virginia, but we could have got it through the daughters on both sides, who were actually much more prolific.  Hilary  



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:22
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)


 

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!
 


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

 

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

AND it was 'important' because the guy in the US is descended from the family of the only US First Lady to die before her husband's inauguration so it would have been nice to know we were 'related'  Hilary


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:38
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)


 

To be fair to them it was guys who went to Virginia, but we could have got it through the daughters on both sides, who were actually much more prolific.  Hilary  

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:22
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)


 

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!
 

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

 

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

" The YouTube video/audio of Richard' s voice was indecipherable to me though:)"

What's this?? Tell me more, please

"Mater certa est, pater non certa est". What is Latin for "milkman"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)



Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!



________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)



Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

All I know is Spanish, Lechero!

On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:14 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark@...>> wrote:



"Mater certa est, pater non certa est". What is Latin for "milkman"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

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

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

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com<http://yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A couple of months ago we were talking about psychic phenomenon and someone pointed out that there is video on you tube with Richard's voice. I think a mom was visiting Middleham castle and a voice was recorded in her video that is supposed to be saying " Loyalty" I listened to it a few times but could not make out a thing. If you search on YouTube it might come up.....

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

On Jan 31, 2013, at 11:14 AM, P BARRETT <favefauve@...> wrote:

> " The YouTube video/audio of Richard' s voice was indecipherable to me though:)"
>
> What's this?? Tell me more, please
>
>
>
>

Je ne sais pas. It's obvious really, but they said that mitrochondrial DNA measurement was still in its infancy and unreliable. Was that an Ancestry.com con in 2009? Why did I ever mention milkmen!!  


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

 

"Mater certa est, pater non certa est". What is Latin for "milkman"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mitochrondrial DNA is easily the most reliable at present, otherwise John wouldn't rely on it. The Y-chromosome is useful for short intervals and nuclear DNA just for parent-child comparisons although that could change.

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)



Je ne sais pas. It's obvious really, but they said that mitrochondrial DNA measurement was still in its infancy and unreliable. Was that an Ancestry.com con in 2009? Why did I ever mention milkmen!!


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)



"Mater certa est, pater non certa est". What is Latin for "milkman"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Stephen. Wish we'd known you at the time  - so  from what you say Y chromosome wouldn't be very healthy after 14 generations, let alone 'pollution'?  My cousin is sadly no longer with us but I will let the guy in the US know; they were both very disappointed.  Sometimes common sense such as proximity, ressemblance and paper records have their place as well.
Ishita - cheer up - all is not lost!


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:08
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

 

Mitochrondrial DNA is easily the most reliable at present, otherwise John wouldn't rely on it. The Y-chromosome is useful for short intervals and nuclear DNA just for parent-child comparisons although that could change.

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Je ne sais pas. It's obvious really, but they said that mitrochondrial DNA measurement was still in its infancy and unreliable. Was that an Ancestry.com con in 2009? Why did I ever mention milkmen!!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

"Mater certa est, pater non certa est". What is Latin for "milkman"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Although he has died, has he left a son, a paternal grandson or paternal nephew/ great-nephew? Their Y would be identical (milkmen excluded).

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)



Thanks Stephen. Wish we'd known you at the time - so from what you say Y chromosome wouldn't be very healthy after 14 generations, let alone 'pollution'? My cousin is sadly no longer with us but I will let the guy in the US know; they were both very disappointed. Sometimes common sense such as proximity, ressemblance and paper records have their place as well.
Ishita - cheer up - all is not lost!


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:08
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)



Mitochrondrial DNA is easily the most reliable at present, otherwise John wouldn't rely on it. The Y-chromosome is useful for short intervals and nuclear DNA just for parent-child comparisons although that could change.

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Je ne sais pas. It's obvious really, but they said that mitrochondrial DNA measurement was still in its infancy and unreliable. Was that an Ancestry.com con in 2009? Why did I ever mention milkmen!!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

"Mater certa est, pater non certa est". What is Latin for "milkman"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes he has left a son and grandson (aged 2 he was quite young when he died) and, knowing him and his wife no milkmen! Thanks.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:51
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

 

Although he has died, has he left a son, a paternal grandson or paternal nephew/ great-nephew? Their Y would be identical (milkmen excluded).

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Thanks Stephen. Wish we'd known you at the time - so from what you say Y chromosome wouldn't be very healthy after 14 generations, let alone 'pollution'? My cousin is sadly no longer with us but I will let the guy in the US know; they were both very disappointed. Sometimes common sense such as proximity, ressemblance and paper records have their place as well.
Ishita - cheer up - all is not lost!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:08
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Mitochrondrial DNA is easily the most reliable at present, otherwise John wouldn't rely on it. The Y-chromosome is useful for short intervals and nuclear DNA just for parent-child comparisons although that could change.

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Je ne sais pas. It's obvious really, but they said that mitrochondrial DNA measurement was still in its infancy and unreliable. Was that an Ancestry.com con in 2009? Why did I ever mention milkmen!!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

"Mater certa est, pater non certa est". What is Latin for "milkman"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good - depending on his age, he might like tea or coffee and leave some saliva behind. Scientific advances will make all DNA reliable eventually and samples taken today can surely be stored until then.

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)



Yes he has left a son and grandson (aged 2 he was quite young when he died) and, knowing him and his wife no milkmen! Thanks.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:51
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)



Although he has died, has he left a son, a paternal grandson or paternal nephew/ great-nephew? Their Y would be identical (milkmen excluded).

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Thanks Stephen. Wish we'd known you at the time - so from what you say Y chromosome wouldn't be very healthy after 14 generations, let alone 'pollution'? My cousin is sadly no longer with us but I will let the guy in the US know; they were both very disappointed. Sometimes common sense such as proximity, ressemblance and paper records have their place as well.
Ishita - cheer up - all is not lost!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:08
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Mitochrondrial DNA is easily the most reliable at present, otherwise John wouldn't rely on it. The Y-chromosome is useful for short intervals and nuclear DNA just for parent-child comparisons although that could change.

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Je ne sais pas. It's obvious really, but they said that mitrochondrial DNA measurement was still in its infancy and unreliable. Was that an Ancestry.com con in 2009? Why did I ever mention milkmen!!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

"Mater certa est, pater non certa est". What is Latin for "milkman"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Actually Stephen I feel vindicated because at the time I did say that but, being men, they wouldn't listen (sorry joking)! It wasn't just surnames they were cousins 14 generations back. They said mitrochondrial DNA was LESS reliable because it was through the female line - must have been a macho thing. They got it off ancestry.
Johanne - indeed!!

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:17
Subject: RE: Annette's response re documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)

Yes, "milk-ladies" might be relevant, but are far less likely to have
entered the picture. J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Your cousin tried a DNA match with someone of the same surname - that's
nuclear DNA (the Y-chromosome as surnames are patrilinear) which isn't that
reliable yet.
Richard's sister's link to Michael Ibsen is through mitochondrial DNA or the
female line. Milkmen are irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: hjnatdat
To:

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Annette's response re documentary
in U.S. (not encouraging)

Hi all,

Just like selling books, Channel 4 is about selling programmes after they've
made them. The more sensational, the more they're likely to sell. A dry
academic programme on Richard (without a Sharma or Starkey to present it)
wouldn't sell as well as the 'grave of the hunchback king' - sad but that's
commerical reality. We just have to go with it and to be fair, as Paul says,
we don't know yet. Dan Snow did quite a balanced job in the five minutes he
had.

As for the DNA, I'm not hopeful. My cousin did a DNA match with the
descendent of someone with the same unusual name from the same English
village who left for Virginia in 1632 and there was 'not enough to be
conclusive'. R goes back another 150 years - that's a lot of potential
milkmen. I think it could well be intersting to see whether it's accepted
without a strong DNA match. Hilary

--- In
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh, I think that is a Universal failure for all of us. It is really crazy
if you have other language keyboards. I certainly understand and most of the
time I think we all get the correct meaning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, my iPad changes spellings grammars. And adds and subtracts words!
Sorry for all the mistakes!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... > wrote:
>
> > I am know to over react! Sorry.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >
> > > Come on now boys and girls.Shall we at least wait until we have seen
it before we start screaming?:-)
> > > Please?
> > > Paul who is now looking forward to it knowing Tony Robinson has been
nowhere near it!
> > > On 30 Jan 2013, at 21:26, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wasnt it supposed to be just a scientific/archeological documentary
about the dig? Why bring in the princes? Is it ever going to change?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> > > > To: "@... @yahoogroups.com >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is rather worrying but what does it mean? The only thing I
can think of is that they are bringing the death of the Princes into the
programme rather than it being a straightforward "is it or isn't it him"
kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
> > > > To:

> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 21:10
> > > > Subject: Annette's response re
documentary in U.S. (not encouraging)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's Annette's response to my question about the Feb. 4
documentary airing in the U.S.:
> > > >
> > > > "Sorry to tell you that I have nothing to do with the TV programme!
I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal
originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the
direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended
for the programme, but that's the extent of it. I actually wrote asking
about the possibility of getting a DVD and received no reply!
> > > > "Regards, Annette"
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the news isn't better. I'm afraid that we Americans (and
others not in the UK) are out of luck. On the other hand, it looks as if the
documentary may not be quite what we were hoping for, either. At least,
Philippa is still involved, the only encouraging note in this response.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>