Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 10:14:37
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 10:34:36
Hilary,
I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
Liz
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
Liz
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 11:18:53
Hi, Hilary –
Richard’s alleged comment, “I didn’t see it coming,” could apply also to the
arrow in the back as well as to the poleax to the head. It would also make
sense, if Richard was engaged in a furious charge toward Henry Tudor through
the Tudor ranks with his relatively small band of supporters being killed
off one by one, he may have finally been struck when he was right in the
midst of the enemy. I wonder, too, if part of the reason that Richard got as
far as he did was because they hesitated to attack the anointed king (which
H7 certainly was not).
I don’t know about mediums, séances, and so on, but I definitely believe in
“ghosts” or “spirits.” As Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and
earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” I tend to think some
mediums might be genuine, if money is not involved.
Anyway, your account of Dening has piqued my interest. Can you tell us more,
or provide a link to further information?
It seems to me that others (maybe some here?) have reported having psychic
experiences at Middleham.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of hjnatdat
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:15 AM
To:
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see
whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the
'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who
had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He
managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount
nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about
the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated'
because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It
happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming.
All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I
know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind;
but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Richard’s alleged comment, “I didn’t see it coming,” could apply also to the
arrow in the back as well as to the poleax to the head. It would also make
sense, if Richard was engaged in a furious charge toward Henry Tudor through
the Tudor ranks with his relatively small band of supporters being killed
off one by one, he may have finally been struck when he was right in the
midst of the enemy. I wonder, too, if part of the reason that Richard got as
far as he did was because they hesitated to attack the anointed king (which
H7 certainly was not).
I don’t know about mediums, séances, and so on, but I definitely believe in
“ghosts” or “spirits.” As Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and
earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” I tend to think some
mediums might be genuine, if money is not involved.
Anyway, your account of Dening has piqued my interest. Can you tell us more,
or provide a link to further information?
It seems to me that others (maybe some here?) have reported having psychic
experiences at Middleham.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of hjnatdat
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:15 AM
To:
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see
whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the
'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who
had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He
managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount
nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about
the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated'
because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It
happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming.
All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I
know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind;
but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 13:00:20
If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 14:35:42
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 14:40:40
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 14:43:13
Hi Liz,
Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
The book (which I got for £6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hilary,
I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
Liz
From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
The book (which I got for £6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hilary,
I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
Liz
From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 14:44:50
Yes - it's not for those in the 'Richard totally innocent' camp.
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 13:00
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 13:00
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 14:49:06
That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 14:51:34
I found it on Amazon.com<http://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 14:56:37
Hi Johanne,
Eileen and I have both given details of the book. What set Dening off was that he and I think at least two others (one was Dorothy forget her name of the York R3 Soc) heard early renaissance music coming from the ruined Great Hall at Middleham. I would seem the other visitors didn't hear it.
Like you I do believe 'there are more things in heaven and earth'. You only have to go to some places - Guy's Cliffe is one with its associations with Guy of Warwick, Rous and the murder of Gaveston - and you can actually feel the vibes - some of them not very nice at all. But other places are more comforting. Hilary
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:14
Subject: RE: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hi, Hilary
Richard's alleged comment, I didn't see it coming, could apply also to the
arrow in the back as well as to the poleax to the head. It would also make
sense, if Richard was engaged in a furious charge toward Henry Tudor through
the Tudor ranks with his relatively small band of supporters being killed
off one by one, he may have finally been struck when he was right in the
midst of the enemy. I wonder, too, if part of the reason that Richard got as
far as he did was because they hesitated to attack the anointed king (which
H7 certainly was not).
I don't know about mediums, séances, and so on, but I definitely believe in
ghosts or spirits. As Hamlet said, There are more things in heaven and
earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. I tend to think some
mediums might be genuine, if money is not involved.
Anyway, your account of Dening has piqued my interest. Can you tell us more,
or provide a link to further information?
It seems to me that others (maybe some here?) have reported having psychic
experiences at Middleham.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of hjnatdat
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:15 AM
To:
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see
whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the
'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who
had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He
managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount
nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about
the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated'
because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It
happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming.
All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I
know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind;
but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Eileen and I have both given details of the book. What set Dening off was that he and I think at least two others (one was Dorothy forget her name of the York R3 Soc) heard early renaissance music coming from the ruined Great Hall at Middleham. I would seem the other visitors didn't hear it.
Like you I do believe 'there are more things in heaven and earth'. You only have to go to some places - Guy's Cliffe is one with its associations with Guy of Warwick, Rous and the murder of Gaveston - and you can actually feel the vibes - some of them not very nice at all. But other places are more comforting. Hilary
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:14
Subject: RE: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hi, Hilary
Richard's alleged comment, I didn't see it coming, could apply also to the
arrow in the back as well as to the poleax to the head. It would also make
sense, if Richard was engaged in a furious charge toward Henry Tudor through
the Tudor ranks with his relatively small band of supporters being killed
off one by one, he may have finally been struck when he was right in the
midst of the enemy. I wonder, too, if part of the reason that Richard got as
far as he did was because they hesitated to attack the anointed king (which
H7 certainly was not).
I don't know about mediums, séances, and so on, but I definitely believe in
ghosts or spirits. As Hamlet said, There are more things in heaven and
earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. I tend to think some
mediums might be genuine, if money is not involved.
Anyway, your account of Dening has piqued my interest. Can you tell us more,
or provide a link to further information?
It seems to me that others (maybe some here?) have reported having psychic
experiences at Middleham.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of hjnatdat
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:15 AM
To:
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see
whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the
'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who
had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He
managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount
nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about
the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated'
because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It
happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming.
All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I
know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind;
but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 14:58:08
Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I found it on Amazon.com<http://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I found it on Amazon.com<http://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:01:24
I thought that was a good price for a "perfect condition" used book.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I found it on Amazon.com<http://Amazon.com>http://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I found it on Amazon.com<http://Amazon.com>http://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:09:41
Amazon UK has it for around £4
Pamela
________________________________
Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
To: ">" >
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I found it on Amazon.comhttp://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...@...>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Pamela
________________________________
Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
To: ">" >
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I found it on Amazon.comhttp://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...@...>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:13:12
I suppose it's because I only paid £6.99. It is quite long and detailed though - not a pamphlet. And I suppose as it gets rarer it will only go up. There could be a run on them after Monday!
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:01
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I thought that was a good price for a "perfect condition" used book.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I found it on Amazon.com<http://Amazon.com>http://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:01
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I thought that was a good price for a "perfect condition" used book.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I found it on Amazon.com<http://Amazon.com>http://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>> wrote:
The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:14:42
You've done it now - I am picturing Margaret Rutherford in a dog collar!
Thanks for the info, I must see if i can get a cheap copy.
Liz
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hi Liz,
Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
The book (which I got for £6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hilary,
I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
Liz
From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Thanks for the info, I must see if i can get a cheap copy.
Liz
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hi Liz,
Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
The book (which I got for £6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hilary,
I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
Liz
From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
(For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:15:06
Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
>
> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>
> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>
> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>
> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
>
> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>
> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>
> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>
> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:26:14
The lady was Dorothy Mitchell who was the founder of the Friends of Richard 111 Society. The medium was Bryan Gibson who if you want you can do a google search for and he comes up. This is one reason I would not poo poo this book...the naming of people who are still around and can be traced although sadly not Dorothy Mitchell.
I have kept an open mind on this book although I can understand a lot of people will dismiss it out of hand. But I guess unless you have a kind of feel and/or belief in psychic matters you will not bother to read this book in the first place.
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:56, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Hi Johanne,
>
> Eileen and I have both given details of the book. What set Dening off was that he and I think at least two others (one was Dorothy forget her name of the York R3 Soc) heard early renaissance music coming from the ruined Great Hall at Middleham. I would seem the other visitors didn't hear it.
>
> Like you I do believe 'there are more things in heaven and earth'. You only have to go to some places - Guy's Cliffe is one with its associations with Guy of Warwick, Rous and the murder of Gaveston - and you can actually feel the vibes - some of them not very nice at all. But other places are more comforting. Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:14
> Subject: RE: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Hi, Hilary ý
>
> Richardýs alleged comment, ýI didnýt see it coming,ý could apply also to the
> arrow in the back as well as to the poleax to the head. It would also make
> sense, if Richard was engaged in a furious charge toward Henry Tudor through
> the Tudor ranks with his relatively small band of supporters being killed
> off one by one, he may have finally been struck when he was right in the
> midst of the enemy. I wonder, too, if part of the reason that Richard got as
> far as he did was because they hesitated to attack the anointed king (which
> H7 certainly was not).
>
> I donýt know about mediums, sýances, and so on, but I definitely believe in
> ýghostsý or ýspirits.ý As Hamlet said, ýThere are more things in heaven and
> earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.ý I tend to think some
> mediums might be genuine, if money is not involved.
>
> Anyway, your account of Dening has piqued my interest. Can you tell us more,
> or provide a link to further information?
>
> It seems to me that others (maybe some here?) have reported having psychic
> experiences at Middleham.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of hjnatdat
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:15 AM
> To:
> Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see
> whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the
> 'seance' matched the skeleton.
>
> (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who
> had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He
> managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
>
> It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount
> nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about
> the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
>
> Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated'
> because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It
> happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming.
> All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I
> know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind;
> but I don't think Dening knew it).
>
> We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have kept an open mind on this book although I can understand a lot of people will dismiss it out of hand. But I guess unless you have a kind of feel and/or belief in psychic matters you will not bother to read this book in the first place.
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:56, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Hi Johanne,
>
> Eileen and I have both given details of the book. What set Dening off was that he and I think at least two others (one was Dorothy forget her name of the York R3 Soc) heard early renaissance music coming from the ruined Great Hall at Middleham. I would seem the other visitors didn't hear it.
>
> Like you I do believe 'there are more things in heaven and earth'. You only have to go to some places - Guy's Cliffe is one with its associations with Guy of Warwick, Rous and the murder of Gaveston - and you can actually feel the vibes - some of them not very nice at all. But other places are more comforting. Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 11:14
> Subject: RE: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Hi, Hilary ý
>
> Richardýs alleged comment, ýI didnýt see it coming,ý could apply also to the
> arrow in the back as well as to the poleax to the head. It would also make
> sense, if Richard was engaged in a furious charge toward Henry Tudor through
> the Tudor ranks with his relatively small band of supporters being killed
> off one by one, he may have finally been struck when he was right in the
> midst of the enemy. I wonder, too, if part of the reason that Richard got as
> far as he did was because they hesitated to attack the anointed king (which
> H7 certainly was not).
>
> I donýt know about mediums, sýances, and so on, but I definitely believe in
> ýghostsý or ýspirits.ý As Hamlet said, ýThere are more things in heaven and
> earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.ý I tend to think some
> mediums might be genuine, if money is not involved.
>
> Anyway, your account of Dening has piqued my interest. Can you tell us more,
> or provide a link to further information?
>
> It seems to me that others (maybe some here?) have reported having psychic
> experiences at Middleham.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of hjnatdat
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:15 AM
> To:
> Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see
> whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the
> 'seance' matched the skeleton.
>
> (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who
> had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He
> managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
>
> It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount
> nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about
> the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
>
> Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated'
> because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It
> happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming.
> All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I
> know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind;
> but I don't think Dening knew it).
>
> We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:27:28
Oh...well worth it and no postage...grab it if I were you....Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:09, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> Amazon UK has it for around ý4
>
> Pamela
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I found it on Amazon.comhttp://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...@...>> wrote:
>
> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>
> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>
> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>
> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:09, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> Amazon UK has it for around ý4
>
> Pamela
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I found it on Amazon.comhttp://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...@...>> wrote:
>
> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>
> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>
> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>
> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:28:03
I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
>
> It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
>
> All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
>> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>>
>> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>>
>> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>>
>> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
>> Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
>>>
>>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
>
> It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
>
> All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
>> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>>
>> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>>
>> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>>
>> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
>> Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
>>>
>>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:29:45
After you've read it Liz would be good to exchange thoughts about it....Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:14, liz williams wrote:
> You've done it now - I am picturing Margaret Rutherford in a dog collar!
>
> Thanks for the info, I must see if i can get a cheap copy.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:43
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
> Hi Liz,
>
> Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
>
> The book (which I got for ý6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
>
> You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
>
>
> Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Hilary,
>
> I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
>
> Liz
>
>
> From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
> Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
> Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
>
> (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
>
> It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
>
> Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
>
> We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:14, liz williams wrote:
> You've done it now - I am picturing Margaret Rutherford in a dog collar!
>
> Thanks for the info, I must see if i can get a cheap copy.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:43
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
> Hi Liz,
>
> Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
>
> The book (which I got for ý6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
>
> You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
>
>
> Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Hilary,
>
> I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
>
> Liz
>
>
> From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
> Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
> Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
>
> (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
>
> It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
>
> Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
>
> We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:29:56
The princes bit took me back too. I shall have to read all of it again in more detail but his inference that the 'Church' controlled not only Richard but Edward is also intriguing. He acknowledges the pre-contract (sorry Karen!). Was he trying to say that the Church controlled the monarchy because they knew of that? I can't remember. I just revisited the beginning and the Bosworth bit. Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:15
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
>
> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>
> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>
> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>
> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:15
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
>
> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>
> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>
> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>
> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:34:02
And the bit that comes through is that the medium thought Richard, despite being a King, was a humble person who wanted to put things right. The word humble comes through several times.Hilary
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:28
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
>
> It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
>
> All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
>> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>>
>> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>>
>> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>>
>> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
>> Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
>>>
>>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:28
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
>
> It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
>
> All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
>> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>>
>> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>>
>> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>>
>> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
>> Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
>>>
>>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:40:35
I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> >
> > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> >
> > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> >>
> >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> >>
> >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> >>
> >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> >
> > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> >
> > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> >>
> >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> >>
> >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> >>
> >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:50:57
Eileen,
It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> >
> > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> >
> > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> >>
> >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> >>
> >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> >>
> >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> >
> > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> >
> > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> >>
> >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> >>
> >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> >>
> >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 15:54:26
OK, I am panting to get the book in hand.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Eileen,
It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:
>
> > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> >
> > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> >
> > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> >>
> >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> >>
> >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> >>
> >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Eileen,
It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:
>
> > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> >
> > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> >
> > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> >>
> >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> >>
> >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> >>
> >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: New information re broadcast
2013-01-31 15:58:24
I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
Dear George,
Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
Regards,
Steve Reynolds
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq
Was it Richard III? Find out on Monday 4 February at 9pm when Channel 4 shows Richard III: The King In The Car Park
Your message :
The Richard III society is very strong in the USA and have been keeping a close watch on the recent discoveries.
However I believe that there is no way to watch the program " The King under the car park" in the USA
Can you please advise me and my fellow Historians if this is possible
Thanks
George Butterfield
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Eileen,
> It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
>
> Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
> Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> > >
> > > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> > >
> > > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> > >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> > >>
> > >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> > >>
> > >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> > >>
> > >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> > >> Eileen
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Dear George,
Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
Regards,
Steve Reynolds
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq
Was it Richard III? Find out on Monday 4 February at 9pm when Channel 4 shows Richard III: The King In The Car Park
Your message :
The Richard III society is very strong in the USA and have been keeping a close watch on the recent discoveries.
However I believe that there is no way to watch the program " The King under the car park" in the USA
Can you please advise me and my fellow Historians if this is possible
Thanks
George Butterfield
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Eileen,
> It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
>
> Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
> Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> > >
> > > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> > >
> > > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> > >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> > >>
> > >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> > >>
> > >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> > >>
> > >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> > >> Eileen
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: New information re broadcast
2013-01-31 16:09:26
Thank you for trying!
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:58 AM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
Dear George,
Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
Regards,
Steve Reynolds
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq
Was it Richard III? Find out on Monday 4 February at 9pm when Channel 4 shows Richard III: The King In The Car Park
Your message :
The Richard III society is very strong in the USA and have been keeping a close watch on the recent discoveries.
However I believe that there is no way to watch the program " The King under the car park" in the USA
Can you please advise me and my fellow Historians if this is possible
Thanks
George Butterfield
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> Eileen,
> It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
>
> Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
> Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> > >
> > > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> > >
> > > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> > >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> > >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> > >>
> > >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> > >>
> > >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> > >>
> > >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> > >> Eileen
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:58 AM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
Dear George,
Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
Regards,
Steve Reynolds
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq
Was it Richard III? Find out on Monday 4 February at 9pm when Channel 4 shows Richard III: The King In The Car Park
Your message :
The Richard III society is very strong in the USA and have been keeping a close watch on the recent discoveries.
However I believe that there is no way to watch the program " The King under the car park" in the USA
Can you please advise me and my fellow Historians if this is possible
Thanks
George Butterfield
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> Eileen,
> It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
>
> Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
> Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> > >
> > > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> > >
> > > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> > >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> > >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> > >>
> > >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> > >>
> > >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> > >>
> > >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> > >> Eileen
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 16:10:32
I got an uncomfortable impression that Dening was a little naive, careless about what he said to the medium, and mediums are very good at picking up on what the paying customer wants to hear. For instance, when "Richard" admitted he was responsible for the murders, Dening was obviously very shocked and upset. Then the medium came up with "but that wasn't what I intended".
Re: New information re broadcast
2013-01-31 16:16:16
George, I suppose they are hoping to sell this - the US is TV's biggest market. My daughter markets for BBC WW. Hilary
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:58
Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
Dear George,
Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
Regards,
Steve Reynolds
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq
Was it Richard III? Find out on Monday 4 February at 9pm when Channel 4 shows Richard III: The King In The Car Park
Your message :
The Richard III society is very strong in the USA and have been keeping a close watch on the recent discoveries.
However I believe that there is no way to watch the program " The King under the car park" in the USA
Can you please advise me and my fellow Historians if this is possible
Thanks
George Butterfield
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Eileen,
> It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
>
> Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
> Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> > >
> > > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> > >
> > > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> > >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> > >>
> > >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> > >>
> > >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> > >>
> > >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> > >> Eileen
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:58
Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
Dear George,
Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
Regards,
Steve Reynolds
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq
Was it Richard III? Find out on Monday 4 February at 9pm when Channel 4 shows Richard III: The King In The Car Park
Your message :
The Richard III society is very strong in the USA and have been keeping a close watch on the recent discoveries.
However I believe that there is no way to watch the program " The King under the car park" in the USA
Can you please advise me and my fellow Historians if this is possible
Thanks
George Butterfield
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Eileen,
> It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
>
> Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
> Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> > >
> > > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> > >
> > > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > >> To:
> > >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> > >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> > >>
> > >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> > >>
> > >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> > >>
> > >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> > >> Eileen
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 16:20:54
To be fair Dening has a healthy scepticism about mediums - and it doesn't go quite like that. But you have to read it all and make up your own mind. After all, the medium could have backtracked and said he'd misheard - there's quite a bit of mumbling recorded. Richard doesn't say this once, he says it several times and he says where they are buried (in lime in Epping Forest). It sounds more like atonement than apportionment of blame. He says Edward understands because he too was pressured by 'the Church', But you do have to read it ........ As I say it asks as many questions as it answers - that's if you believe any!
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 16:10
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I got an uncomfortable impression that Dening was a little naive, careless about what he said to the medium, and mediums are very good at picking up on what the paying customer wants to hear. For instance, when "Richard" admitted he was responsible for the murders, Dening was obviously very shocked and upset. Then the medium came up with "but that wasn't what I intended".
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 16:10
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I got an uncomfortable impression that Dening was a little naive, careless about what he said to the medium, and mediums are very good at picking up on what the paying customer wants to hear. For instance, when "Richard" admitted he was responsible for the murders, Dening was obviously very shocked and upset. Then the medium came up with "but that wasn't what I intended".
Re: New information re broadcast
2013-01-31 16:23:33
Yes i am sure that this is the plan
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> George, I suppose they are hoping to sell this - the US is TV's biggest market. My daughter markets for BBC WW. Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:58
> Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
>
>
>
> I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
>
> Dear George,
>
> Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
>
> We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
>
> I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
>
> Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve Reynolds
> Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
>
> For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq
>
> Was it Richard III? Find out on Monday 4 February at 9pm when Channel 4 shows Richard III: The King In The Car Park
>
> Your message :
> The Richard III society is very strong in the USA and have been keeping a close watch on the recent discoveries.
> However I believe that there is no way to watch the program " The King under the car park" in the USA
> Can you please advise me and my fellow Historians if this is possible
>
> Thanks
>
> George Butterfield
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > Eileen,
> > It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
> > Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> > I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
> >
> > Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
> > Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
> > >
> > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > > > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> > > >
> > > > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> > > >
> > > > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > > > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> > > >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> > > >>
> > > >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> > > >>
> > > >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> > > >> Eileen
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> George, I suppose they are hoping to sell this - the US is TV's biggest market. My daughter markets for BBC WW. Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:58
> Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
>
>
>
> I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
>
> Dear George,
>
> Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
>
> We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
>
> I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
>
> Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve Reynolds
> Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
>
> For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq
>
> Was it Richard III? Find out on Monday 4 February at 9pm when Channel 4 shows Richard III: The King In The Car Park
>
> Your message :
> The Richard III society is very strong in the USA and have been keeping a close watch on the recent discoveries.
> However I believe that there is no way to watch the program " The King under the car park" in the USA
> Can you please advise me and my fellow Historians if this is possible
>
> Thanks
>
> George Butterfield
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > Eileen,
> > It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
> > Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> > I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
> >
> > Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
> > Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
> > >
> > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > > > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> > > >
> > > > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> > > >
> > > > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > > > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > > >> To:
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> > > >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> > > >>
> > > >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> > > >>
> > > >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> > > >> Eileen
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, P BARRETT wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 16:31:37
Jeez! Talk about ripping poor Americans off! Lol.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
> Amazon UK has it for around £4
>
> Pamela
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I found it on Amazon.comhttp://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...@...>> wrote:
>
> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>
> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>
> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>
> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
> Amazon UK has it for around £4
>
> Pamela
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Good grief! Have you tried secondhand on UK amazon? I think it's because it's one of those books which was probably self-published - that's why they're all so rare. Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> I found it on Amazon.comhttp://Amazon.com>, used for about $24.00.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...@...>> wrote:
>
> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
>
> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
>
> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
>
> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 16:49:22
Eileen. this the book I have been mentioning on here a few times. Not sure about the first part about the sceance, I must read it again. John Dening was a lovely man. I got my copy direct from him and he signed it. I had a long chat on the phone with him, he was an ardent Ricardian and very knowledgable.
The Richard Collins "Death of Edward IV" is a different kettle of fish. While he hasn't got definite evidence that the Woodville's murdered Edward he has dug up some evidence of the odd behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers and the opinion of his medical colleagues that it could be arsenic poisoning. If this were true, and we do not have enough evidence to say definitely, in my opinion it puts a whole new prospective on what happened in April- June 1483. However, it does no harm to speculate i.e. if this was the case could that be why Richard executed Anthony and the other two? Was Hastings involved? Was MB involved? It is as plausible as the traditionalists saying that Richard murdered the Princes. Annette has put forward her thoughts on it in "Maligned King " and if I remember rightly some more evidence about Reginald Bray and MB.
Here's hoping that Monday is good for us.
Mary
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> After you've read it Liz would be good to exchange thoughts about it....Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:14, liz williams wrote:
>
> > You've done it now - I am picturing Margaret Rutherford in a dog collar!
> >
> > Thanks for the info, I must see if i can get a cheap copy.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:43
> > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> >
> > Hi Liz,
> >
> > Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
> >
> > The book (which I got for £6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
> >
> > You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
> >
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
> > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary,
> >
> > I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
> > Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> >
> > Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
> >
> > (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
> >
> > It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
> >
> > Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
> >
> > We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
The Richard Collins "Death of Edward IV" is a different kettle of fish. While he hasn't got definite evidence that the Woodville's murdered Edward he has dug up some evidence of the odd behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers and the opinion of his medical colleagues that it could be arsenic poisoning. If this were true, and we do not have enough evidence to say definitely, in my opinion it puts a whole new prospective on what happened in April- June 1483. However, it does no harm to speculate i.e. if this was the case could that be why Richard executed Anthony and the other two? Was Hastings involved? Was MB involved? It is as plausible as the traditionalists saying that Richard murdered the Princes. Annette has put forward her thoughts on it in "Maligned King " and if I remember rightly some more evidence about Reginald Bray and MB.
Here's hoping that Monday is good for us.
Mary
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> After you've read it Liz would be good to exchange thoughts about it....Eileen
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:14, liz williams wrote:
>
> > You've done it now - I am picturing Margaret Rutherford in a dog collar!
> >
> > Thanks for the info, I must see if i can get a cheap copy.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:43
> > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> >
> > Hi Liz,
> >
> > Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
> >
> > The book (which I got for £6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
> >
> > You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
> >
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
> > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary,
> >
> > I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
> > Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> >
> > Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
> >
> > (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
> >
> > It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
> >
> > Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
> >
> > We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 17:00:05
Me too!!!
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
OK, I am panting to get the book in hand.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Eileen,
It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:
>
> > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> >
> > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> >
> > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> >>
> >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> >>
> >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> >>
> >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
OK, I am panting to get the book in hand.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Eileen,
It would seem it hooked us both. It's actually one of my favourites. The fact it raises more questions than answers makes it the more plausible. I loved the 'sighting' of Richard and Edward in York Minster. Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 15:40
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I will have to re-read it but a brief foray tells me that "he (Richard) was not aware that what happened to the Princes was going to happen...". I also have a recollection that the book says that Richard felt he was to blame because the boys died while they were in his care.....His taking the blame does not mean that he signed their death warrants...he was deceived ....but it happened on his watch and I suppose he felt the buck stopped with him...so therefore he felt guilty and responsible.
Richard reiterates...in the sceance..that his and Anne's lives were not their own once they were King and Queen....but the Church..run things...and one churchman is mentioned in particular (Morton?). It goes into quite a bit of detail...I liked this book and that I still have it on my bookshelf proves it :0)
Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I think accepting the blame shows what an honorable person he was. He probably knew that he would be blamed, and denial would be fruitless.
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:
>
> > Oh yes Hilary...I enjoyed the Appendixes....re the ghostly music heard at Fotheringhay church and Middleham Castle.
> > A bit taken aback by Richard accepting blame for the Princes death... although it was unintentional....especially as this book was written by an ardent Ricardian....but the bodies were not buried in the Tower of London?
> >
> > It does look as if the cause of death is correct...blow on back of head...never saw it coming and died very quickly.. Its a great shame Rev Dening did not touch on Richard's burial place because that would really seal it if he had got that correct.
> >
> > All in all I enjoyed this book.....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >> That's right Eileen. I've just told Liz it's worth buying if cheap. I just think you have to read everything - you never know .....
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:35
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The book you are talking about is "Secret History: The Truth about Richard lll and the Princes"...I got mine from the the little museum in York...by John Dening and includes the treatise on The Death of Edward IV by RE Collins. This little book is worth buying for the part regarding the Edward's IV death alone.
> >>
> >> Yes...Richard does take the blame for the death of the princes according to the book but unintentionally...
> >>
> >> The blurb about the author states that the Rev John Dening, now deceased, was a retired Anglian Priest living in Suffolk and he was the Honorary Chaplain to the Society of Friends of Richard lll mostly based in the north of England.
> >>
> >> People will have to read this book and make their own minds up....
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, P BARRETT wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I remember rightly R also told Dening that it was his fault that the Princes were killed. He said he signed something which was taken by someone else to mean 'kill them' and he hadn't meant that at all. Edward, apparently, has forgiven him - we didn't hear what the princes thought...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 17:15:05
Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
"Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
"Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 17:26:20
Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
Skeptically
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
Skeptically
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 17:49:33
George, supernatural is always fun to discuss! We need to blow of the steam sometime!
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
Skeptically
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
Skeptically
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 17:56:34
I will buy more aluminum foil for a helmet "your jealous as only I can hear the voices etc."
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> George, supernatural is always fun to discuss! We need to blow of the steam sometime!
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >
> > http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >
> > "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> George, supernatural is always fun to discuss! We need to blow of the steam sometime!
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >
> > http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >
> > "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 18:12:02
On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:15, wednesday_mc wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 18:17:40
Just read tthe article! That stupid ghost floating around was surely a distraction. wanted to swat at it a few times:/
added the $24 book to my cart.......
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:15, wednesday_mc wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
added the $24 book to my cart.......
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:15, wednesday_mc wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 18:23:48
I felt the same and did the same!
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:17 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Just read tthe article! That stupid ghost floating around was surely a distraction. wanted to swat at it a few times:/
added the $24 book to my cart.......
________________________________
From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:15, wednesday_mc wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:17 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Just read tthe article! That stupid ghost floating around was surely a distraction. wanted to swat at it a few times:/
added the $24 book to my cart.......
________________________________
From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:15, wednesday_mc wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 18:39:17
George,
At least it got us away from Tony Robinson! Hilary
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:26
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
Skeptically
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
At least it got us away from Tony Robinson! Hilary
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:26
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
Skeptically
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>
> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 18:39:31
I feel sure you will enjoy....and then of course make your own minds up...Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:23, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I felt the same and did the same!
>
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:17 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just read tthe article! That stupid ghost floating around was surely a distraction. wanted to swat at it a few times:/
> added the $24 book to my cart.......
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:15, wednesday_mc wrote:
>
>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>
>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>
>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:23, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I felt the same and did the same!
>
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:17 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just read tthe article! That stupid ghost floating around was surely a distraction. wanted to swat at it a few times:/
> added the $24 book to my cart.......
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:15, wednesday_mc wrote:
>
>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>
>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>
>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 18:45:22
Hilary
I would suggest that you listen to the great late Jake Thackery and his Castleford ladies song
Being a stoic Yorkshireman living in the USA for 28 years nothing surprises me!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> George,
> At least it got us away from Tony Robinson! Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >
> > http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >
> > "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
I would suggest that you listen to the great late Jake Thackery and his Castleford ladies song
Being a stoic Yorkshireman living in the USA for 28 years nothing surprises me!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> George,
> At least it got us away from Tony Robinson! Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >
> > http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >
> > "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 18:49:56
Will do. Am married to sceptical Yorkshireman. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 18:45
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hilary
I would suggest that you listen to the great late Jake Thackery and his Castleford ladies song
Being a stoic Yorkshireman living in the USA for 28 years nothing surprises me!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> George,
> At least it got us away from Tony Robinson! Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >
> > http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >
> > "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 18:45
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hilary
I would suggest that you listen to the great late Jake Thackery and his Castleford ladies song
Being a stoic Yorkshireman living in the USA for 28 years nothing surprises me!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> George,
> At least it got us away from Tony Robinson! Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 17:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >
> > http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >
> > "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 18:50:27
Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
Paul
On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>
>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>
>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
Paul
On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>
>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>
>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 18:53:40
Paul
I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> Paul
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
>
> > Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> > It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> > Skeptically
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>
> >> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>
> >> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> Paul
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
>
> > Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> > It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> > Skeptically
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>
> >> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>
> >> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 19:01:09
Mary...John Dening did come across after reading the book as a lovely and gentle man...but no pushover either. How lovely for you to have actually spoken to him.
When I first heard about this book I was a bit skeptical as although I have all by adult life visited psychics/mediums for readings I also know that there is some skulldugery about with some mediums not being as genuine as others etc., and pulling the wool etc. and making money so I like to have a good look before I decide. After I read this book I was quite impressed...and I believe that John Dening was absolutely sincere and honest. I have also looked the medium he used up on google and he is obviously genuine too. The fact that Rev Dening mentions Dorothy Mitchell several times and knew her convinced me he was honest. Only a very wicked person would use people in such a way.
I too am going to read this book again, starting from tonight, as I read it a couple of years ago or more.
Touching on the 2nd part by Richard Collins...Well...a smashing read. I see Annette tried to trace Mr Collins but had no luck. All in all this book is a very good read.
I know that the possible poisoning of Edward has been discussed on here at length...this and the possibility of the Woodvilles, especially EW being involved, I found mind-blowing. If and should this be a fact...was it any wonder EW went scurrying into Sanctuary.....But who knows.....?
Yes...fingers crossed for Monday....but seeing as they already know if it is Richard or not..Im inclined to think it is because surely if it were otherwise they would have dropped it by now...
best wishes Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 16:49, ricard1an wrote:
> Eileen. this the book I have been mentioning on here a few times. Not sure about the first part about the sceance, I must read it again. John Dening was a lovely man. I got my copy direct from him and he signed it. I had a long chat on the phone with him, he was an ardent Ricardian and very knowledgable.
>
> The Richard Collins "Death of Edward IV" is a different kettle of fish. While he hasn't got definite evidence that the Woodville's murdered Edward he has dug up some evidence of the odd behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers and the opinion of his medical colleagues that it could be arsenic poisoning. If this were true, and we do not have enough evidence to say definitely, in my opinion it puts a whole new prospective on what happened in April- June 1483. However, it does no harm to speculate i.e. if this was the case could that be why Richard executed Anthony and the other two? Was Hastings involved? Was MB involved? It is as plausible as the traditionalists saying that Richard murdered the Princes. Annette has put forward her thoughts on it in "Maligned King " and if I remember rightly some more evidence about Reginald Bray and MB.
>
> Here's hoping that Monday is good for us.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > After you've read it Liz would be good to exchange thoughts about it....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:14, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > > You've done it now - I am picturing Margaret Rutherford in a dog collar!
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info, I must see if i can get a cheap copy.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > > To: ">
> > > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:43
> > > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Liz,
> > >
> > > Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
> > >
> > > The book (which I got for ý6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
> > >
> > > You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
> > > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary,
> > >
> > > I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > > From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
> > > Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >
> > >
> > > Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
> > >
> > > (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
> > >
> > > It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
> > >
> > > Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
> > >
> > > We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
When I first heard about this book I was a bit skeptical as although I have all by adult life visited psychics/mediums for readings I also know that there is some skulldugery about with some mediums not being as genuine as others etc., and pulling the wool etc. and making money so I like to have a good look before I decide. After I read this book I was quite impressed...and I believe that John Dening was absolutely sincere and honest. I have also looked the medium he used up on google and he is obviously genuine too. The fact that Rev Dening mentions Dorothy Mitchell several times and knew her convinced me he was honest. Only a very wicked person would use people in such a way.
I too am going to read this book again, starting from tonight, as I read it a couple of years ago or more.
Touching on the 2nd part by Richard Collins...Well...a smashing read. I see Annette tried to trace Mr Collins but had no luck. All in all this book is a very good read.
I know that the possible poisoning of Edward has been discussed on here at length...this and the possibility of the Woodvilles, especially EW being involved, I found mind-blowing. If and should this be a fact...was it any wonder EW went scurrying into Sanctuary.....But who knows.....?
Yes...fingers crossed for Monday....but seeing as they already know if it is Richard or not..Im inclined to think it is because surely if it were otherwise they would have dropped it by now...
best wishes Eileen
On 31 Jan 2013, at 16:49, ricard1an wrote:
> Eileen. this the book I have been mentioning on here a few times. Not sure about the first part about the sceance, I must read it again. John Dening was a lovely man. I got my copy direct from him and he signed it. I had a long chat on the phone with him, he was an ardent Ricardian and very knowledgable.
>
> The Richard Collins "Death of Edward IV" is a different kettle of fish. While he hasn't got definite evidence that the Woodville's murdered Edward he has dug up some evidence of the odd behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers and the opinion of his medical colleagues that it could be arsenic poisoning. If this were true, and we do not have enough evidence to say definitely, in my opinion it puts a whole new prospective on what happened in April- June 1483. However, it does no harm to speculate i.e. if this was the case could that be why Richard executed Anthony and the other two? Was Hastings involved? Was MB involved? It is as plausible as the traditionalists saying that Richard murdered the Princes. Annette has put forward her thoughts on it in "Maligned King " and if I remember rightly some more evidence about Reginald Bray and MB.
>
> Here's hoping that Monday is good for us.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > After you've read it Liz would be good to exchange thoughts about it....Eileen
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:14, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > > You've done it now - I am picturing Margaret Rutherford in a dog collar!
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info, I must see if i can get a cheap copy.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > > To: ">
> > > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 14:43
> > > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Liz,
> > >
> > > Dening, who was Hon Chaplain to the RIII Soc, wrote a book called 'The Truth about Richard III & The Princes' . It was published in 2 parts (both in the book). The second part is RE Collins theory that E4 was poisoned - and that's the bit that Annette uses.
> > >
> > > The book (which I got for ý6.99) is a good and rather comforting read. Dening, as an ex-soldier and Anglican priest is very grounded, not at all a Madame Arcati. Yes, Richard does talk about his loss of reputation, which is why he is close to those who support him and are prepared to listen. He 'chose' Dening because he was an ex-soldier. It's controversial because it claims the Yorkist monarchs were puppets of the Church - in particular one arch-villain churchman who 'wore red' later!! I wonder who?
> > >
> > > You will see it reviewed here and there on the web; it might be for sale cheap somewhere. If it is, it is an interesting read. In particular, there is a bit where Dening 'asks' R if those who support him now may have known him in his lifetime and he says yes. Wasn't that a subject of some posts a few weeks' ago? Could be totally nutty, but then so are things in life sometimes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:34
> > > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary,
> > >
> > > I've never even heard of this. Is there any more info online? Maybe it's junk but I'd still be interested to read what "Richard" said (and did he know about the trashing of his reputation over the subsequent centuries?)
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > > From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 10:14
> > > Subject: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> > >
> > >
> > > Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
> > >
> > > (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
> > >
> > > It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
> > >
> > > Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
> > >
> > > We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 19:03:18
Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> Paul
> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> > Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> > There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > > Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> > > It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> > > Skeptically
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> > >>
> > >> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > >> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> Paul
> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> > Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> > There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > > Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> > > It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> > > Skeptically
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> > >>
> > >> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > >> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 19:39:18
I was thinking with aluminum foil and a few large hairpins, we in the US might get Channel 4!
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "eileen bates" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
>
>> Paul
>> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
>> G
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
>>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
>>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
>>>> Skeptically
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "eileen bates" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
>
>> Paul
>> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
>> G
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
>>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
>>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
>>>> Skeptically
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 19:42:33
Lol.....
--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I was thinking with aluminum foil and a few large hairpins, we in the US might get Channel 4!
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "eileen bates" wrote:
>
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I was thinking with aluminum foil and a few large hairpins, we in the US might get Channel 4!
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "eileen bates" wrote:
>
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 19:43:16
Great idea.............. Has my vote
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> I was thinking with aluminum foil and a few large hairpins, we in the US might get Channel 4!
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> I was thinking with aluminum foil and a few large hairpins, we in the US might get Channel 4!
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 19:49:26
I remember the rabbit ears, and having to stand next to the tv, to move them ever so slightly to get "perfect" reception.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:43 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
Great idea.............. Has my vote
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> I was thinking with aluminum foil and a few large hairpins, we in the US might get Channel 4!
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:
>
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:43 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
Great idea.............. Has my vote
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> I was thinking with aluminum foil and a few large hairpins, we in the US might get Channel 4!
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "eileen bates" eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:
>
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: New information re broadcast
2013-01-31 20:16:49
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
>
> Dear George,
>
> Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
>
> We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
>
> I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
>
> Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve Reynolds
> Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
Carol responds:
George, is it all right if I quote this message on the other forum? I can omit your name if you prefer.
Thanks much.
Carol
>
> I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
>
> Dear George,
>
> Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
>
> We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
>
> I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
>
> Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve Reynolds
> Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
Carol responds:
George, is it all right if I quote this message on the other forum? I can omit your name if you prefer.
Thanks much.
Carol
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 20:29:12
Dear Paul -
This is not a public forum. I hope that even if we are among fellow
"nutters," we are also among friends. (smile)
It is interesting to discuss issues like this - imho, it is on point. And
it is useful to get the opinions of people who are familiar with the work
and the author, to find out if this guy is a total crank or not.
I have had experience of paranormal phenomena in my own life; therefore I
know that such things *can* happen, although they are rare. But - just
believing in things like ESP doesn't necessarily make me or anyone else here
a "kook." I'm not going to change my behavior or my beliefs because some
people might think I'm weird. And the opinions of scoffers aren't going to
change just because we cease the discussion. And, you know, it's very
likely that they would regard everyone here as weird, just because of the
subject of our interest. So - my advice is that you should skip over the
discussion you're not interested in and delete, delete, delete. (smile)
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and
Bosworth
Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the
past few hours!
There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians
nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
Paul
On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading
off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo
science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible
evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...
<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham
and wrote about it here online:
>>
>>
http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleha
m.html
>>
>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>>
http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
This is not a public forum. I hope that even if we are among fellow
"nutters," we are also among friends. (smile)
It is interesting to discuss issues like this - imho, it is on point. And
it is useful to get the opinions of people who are familiar with the work
and the author, to find out if this guy is a total crank or not.
I have had experience of paranormal phenomena in my own life; therefore I
know that such things *can* happen, although they are rare. But - just
believing in things like ESP doesn't necessarily make me or anyone else here
a "kook." I'm not going to change my behavior or my beliefs because some
people might think I'm weird. And the opinions of scoffers aren't going to
change just because we cease the discussion. And, you know, it's very
likely that they would regard everyone here as weird, just because of the
subject of our interest. So - my advice is that you should skip over the
discussion you're not interested in and delete, delete, delete. (smile)
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and
Bosworth
Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the
past few hours!
There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians
nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
Paul
On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading
off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo
science?
> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible
evidence to the contrary
> Skeptically
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...
<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham
and wrote about it here online:
>>
>>
http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleha
m.html
>>
>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>>
http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth)
2013-01-31 21:02:11
Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
I can see where a theory might be floated that:
1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
4. This time, they got the dosage right.
But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
"Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
"As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
~Weds
I can see where a theory might be floated that:
1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
4. This time, they got the dosage right.
But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
"Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
"As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
~Weds
Re: Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Boswor
2013-01-31 21:23:38
Maybe they thought they will profit even more from E5? Not that I am saying he was poisoned or anything.....But whenever someone died young within the royal family there was a rumor of poison. Look at poor Anne.....
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:02 PM
Subject: Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth)
Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
I can see where a theory might be floated that:
1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
4. This time, they got the dosage right.
But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
"Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
"As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
~Weds
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:02 PM
Subject: Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth)
Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
I can see where a theory might be floated that:
1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
4. This time, they got the dosage right.
But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
"Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
"As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
~Weds
Re: New information re broadcast
2013-01-31 21:29:18
Carol
No problem with using the full quote, you never know but it may be seen by people who could do something.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
> >
> > Dear George,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
> >
> > We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
> >
> > I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
> >
> > Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve Reynolds
> > Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
>
> Carol responds:
>
> George, is it all right if I quote this message on the other forum? I can omit your name if you prefer.
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Carol
>
>
No problem with using the full quote, you never know but it may be seen by people who could do something.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
> >
> > Dear George,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
> >
> > We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
> >
> > I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
> >
> > Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve Reynolds
> > Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
>
> Carol responds:
>
> George, is it all right if I quote this message on the other forum? I can omit your name if you prefer.
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Carol
>
>
Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth)
2013-01-31 21:36:57
Wednesday...All your questions are answered in Maligned King and R E Collins Secret History (Part 2)....Annette covers this topic very well in Chapter 1 "Poisoned' in Maligned King...and also goes into Collins theory that Edward could have been poisoned in 'Secret History'. Annette suggests the possibility that EW fearing that after nearly 20 years of marriage, being slightly older than Edward and after 10 pregnancies that her charms may have been on the wane for Edward "her latest matrimonial humiliation had come at the hands of Elizabeth Lambert". Elizabeth's motive in poisoning E may have been to remove the crown from the head of a 'dangerously bored husband and place it on that of a doting son" However I dont want to quote Annette too much on here as I dont have her permission and she may not been happy about it. (I do wish Annette would come back!)
Eileen
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
>
> I can see where a theory might be floated that:
>
> 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
>
> 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
>
> 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
>
> 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
>
> But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
>
> "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
>
> "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
>
> As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
>
> ~Weds
>
Eileen
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
>
> I can see where a theory might be floated that:
>
> 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
>
> 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
>
> 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
>
> 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
>
> But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
>
> "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
>
> "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
>
> As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
>
> ~Weds
>
Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth)
2013-01-31 21:56:29
Of course even the doctors used to poison you and I should imagine everybody tried the absolute best to stay out of their clutches....Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> Wednesday...All your questions are answered in Maligned King and R E Collins Secret History (Part 2)....Annette covers this topic very well in Chapter 1 "Poisoned' in Maligned King...and also goes into Collins theory that Edward could have been poisoned in 'Secret History'. Annette suggests the possibility that EW fearing that after nearly 20 years of marriage, being slightly older than Edward and after 10 pregnancies that her charms may have been on the wane for Edward "her latest matrimonial humiliation had come at the hands of Elizabeth Lambert". Elizabeth's motive in poisoning E may have been to remove the crown from the head of a 'dangerously bored husband and place it on that of a doting son" However I dont want to quote Annette too much on here as I dont have her permission and she may not been happy about it. (I do wish Annette would come back!)
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
> >
> > I can see where a theory might be floated that:
> >
> > 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
> >
> > 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
> >
> > 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
> >
> > 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
> >
> > But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
> >
> > "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
> >
> > "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
> >
> > As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> Wednesday...All your questions are answered in Maligned King and R E Collins Secret History (Part 2)....Annette covers this topic very well in Chapter 1 "Poisoned' in Maligned King...and also goes into Collins theory that Edward could have been poisoned in 'Secret History'. Annette suggests the possibility that EW fearing that after nearly 20 years of marriage, being slightly older than Edward and after 10 pregnancies that her charms may have been on the wane for Edward "her latest matrimonial humiliation had come at the hands of Elizabeth Lambert". Elizabeth's motive in poisoning E may have been to remove the crown from the head of a 'dangerously bored husband and place it on that of a doting son" However I dont want to quote Annette too much on here as I dont have her permission and she may not been happy about it. (I do wish Annette would come back!)
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
> >
> > I can see where a theory might be floated that:
> >
> > 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
> >
> > 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
> >
> > 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
> >
> > 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
> >
> > But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
> >
> > "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
> >
> > "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
> >
> > As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
Re: Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Boswor
2013-01-31 21:59:57
The doctors still do ask any Oncologist!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 4:56 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Of course even the doctors used to poison you and I should imagine everybody tried the absolute best to stay out of their clutches....Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Wednesday...All your questions are answered in Maligned King and R E Collins Secret History (Part 2)....Annette covers this topic very well in Chapter 1 "Poisoned' in Maligned King...and also goes into Collins theory that Edward could have been poisoned in 'Secret History'. Annette suggests the possibility that EW fearing that after nearly 20 years of marriage, being slightly older than Edward and after 10 pregnancies that her charms may have been on the wane for Edward "her latest matrimonial humiliation had come at the hands of Elizabeth Lambert". Elizabeth's motive in poisoning E may have been to remove the crown from the head of a 'dangerously bored husband and place it on that of a doting son" However I dont want to quote Annette too much on here as I dont have her permission and she may not been happy about it. (I do wish Annette would come back!)
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> > >
> > > Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
> > >
> > > I can see where a theory might be floated that:
> > >
> > > 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
> > >
> > > 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
> > >
> > > 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
> > >
> > > 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
> > >
> > > But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
> > >
> > > "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
> > >
> > > "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
> > >
> > > As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> >
>
>
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 4:56 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Of course even the doctors used to poison you and I should imagine everybody tried the absolute best to stay out of their clutches....Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Wednesday...All your questions are answered in Maligned King and R E Collins Secret History (Part 2)....Annette covers this topic very well in Chapter 1 "Poisoned' in Maligned King...and also goes into Collins theory that Edward could have been poisoned in 'Secret History'. Annette suggests the possibility that EW fearing that after nearly 20 years of marriage, being slightly older than Edward and after 10 pregnancies that her charms may have been on the wane for Edward "her latest matrimonial humiliation had come at the hands of Elizabeth Lambert". Elizabeth's motive in poisoning E may have been to remove the crown from the head of a 'dangerously bored husband and place it on that of a doting son" However I dont want to quote Annette too much on here as I dont have her permission and she may not been happy about it. (I do wish Annette would come back!)
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> > >
> > > Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
> > >
> > > I can see where a theory might be floated that:
> > >
> > > 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
> > >
> > > 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
> > >
> > > 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
> > >
> > > 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
> > >
> > > But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
> > >
> > > "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
> > >
> > > "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
> > >
> > > As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> >
>
>
Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth)
2013-01-31 22:42:26
Wednesday, Richard Collins' theory is that Edward was no longer the goose that laid the golden eggs for the Woodvilles and therefore he suggests that the Woodvilles would have been better off finding a new goose e.g.Edward V.
He quotes Lieutenant Colombo who apparently had a theory that" in investigating a crime you look for a break in the pattern of behaviour. If someone dies unexpectedly and inexplicably, look for the one who seems to have expected him to die and you have your suspect." He then goes on to detail the strange behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers in the months before Edward's death citing documentary evidence. Richard Collins worked in a large provincial hospital and he described the circumstances of Edward's death, as if he was describing a patient, to his colleagues. He asked 30 people and 3 of them suggested arsenic.
Regards
Mary
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
>
> I can see where a theory might be floated that:
>
> 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
>
> 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
>
> 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
>
> 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
>
> But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
>
> "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
>
> "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
>
> As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
>
> ~Weds
>
He quotes Lieutenant Colombo who apparently had a theory that" in investigating a crime you look for a break in the pattern of behaviour. If someone dies unexpectedly and inexplicably, look for the one who seems to have expected him to die and you have your suspect." He then goes on to detail the strange behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers in the months before Edward's death citing documentary evidence. Richard Collins worked in a large provincial hospital and he described the circumstances of Edward's death, as if he was describing a patient, to his colleagues. He asked 30 people and 3 of them suggested arsenic.
Regards
Mary
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
>
> I can see where a theory might be floated that:
>
> 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
>
> 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
>
> 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
>
> 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
>
> But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
>
> "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
>
> "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
>
> As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
>
> ~Weds
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 22:51:09
I'm with you on this, George. I like my phenomena to be measurable,
replicable and demonstrable, and nothing 'paranormal' has managed to be any
of those so far.
Karen
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:26:16 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and
Bosworth
Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off
in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo
science?
It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible
evidence to the contrary
Skeptically
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...
<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> > wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and
wrote about it here online:
>
>
http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.ht
ml
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
replicable and demonstrable, and nothing 'paranormal' has managed to be any
of those so far.
Karen
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:26:16 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and
Bosworth
Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off
in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo
science?
It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible
evidence to the contrary
Skeptically
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...
<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com> > wrote:
> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and
wrote about it here online:
>
>
http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.ht
ml
>
> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 22:51:24
Paul
You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> Paul
> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> > Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> > There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > > Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> > > It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> > > Skeptically
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> > >>
> > >> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > >> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
'
You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> Paul
> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> > Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> > There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > > Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> > > It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> > > Skeptically
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> > >>
> > >> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> > >> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
'
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-01-31 23:56:51
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> This is not a public forum. I hope that even if we are among fellow
> "nutters," we are also among friends. (smile)
Carol responds:
Actually, a Google search for certain topics will take people to some of our posts. I've seen my own posts quoted. Whether the searchers can read all of the posts without being a member, I don't know. (The other forum is members only; this one isn't, so it's possible that a nonmember can read what we've written but not respond.)
As for the topic at hand (Richard's ghost), it doesn't bother me as long as it's not the version presented in "On the Trail of King Richard III," possibly the worst of the many bad Ricardian novels. Members should be free to discuss it if they like; those who don't can skip to another topic--or start a new one that's more to their liking.
Carol
> This is not a public forum. I hope that even if we are among fellow
> "nutters," we are also among friends. (smile)
Carol responds:
Actually, a Google search for certain topics will take people to some of our posts. I've seen my own posts quoted. Whether the searchers can read all of the posts without being a member, I don't know. (The other forum is members only; this one isn't, so it's possible that a nonmember can read what we've written but not respond.)
As for the topic at hand (Richard's ghost), it doesn't bother me as long as it's not the version presented in "On the Trail of King Richard III," possibly the worst of the many bad Ricardian novels. Members should be free to discuss it if they like; those who don't can skip to another topic--or start a new one that's more to their liking.
Carol
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 00:08:03
I have no problem with such things being discussed. A few of us have
registered our skepticism. Beyond that, I make no contribution.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:56:48 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> This is not a public forum. I hope that even if we are among fellow
> "nutters," we are also among friends. (smile)
Carol responds:
Actually, a Google search for certain topics will take people to some of our
posts. I've seen my own posts quoted. Whether the searchers can read all of
the posts without being a member, I don't know. (The other forum is members
only; this one isn't, so it's possible that a nonmember can read what we've
written but not respond.)
As for the topic at hand (Richard's ghost), it doesn't bother me as long as
it's not the version presented in "On the Trail of King Richard III,"
possibly the worst of the many bad Ricardian novels. Members should be free
to discuss it if they like; those who don't can skip to another topic--or
start a new one that's more to their liking.
Carol
registered our skepticism. Beyond that, I make no contribution.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:56:48 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> This is not a public forum. I hope that even if we are among fellow
> "nutters," we are also among friends. (smile)
Carol responds:
Actually, a Google search for certain topics will take people to some of our
posts. I've seen my own posts quoted. Whether the searchers can read all of
the posts without being a member, I don't know. (The other forum is members
only; this one isn't, so it's possible that a nonmember can read what we've
written but not respond.)
As for the topic at hand (Richard's ghost), it doesn't bother me as long as
it's not the version presented in "On the Trail of King Richard III,"
possibly the worst of the many bad Ricardian novels. Members should be free
to discuss it if they like; those who don't can skip to another topic--or
start a new one that's more to their liking.
Carol
Re: New information re broadcast
2013-02-01 00:19:33
George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Carol
> No problem with using the full quote, you never know but it may be seen by people who could do something.
Carol responds:
Thanks, George. Unfortunately, despite all my posts to the contrary, they're just becoming aware that there *is* a documentary and are under the impression that they can watch it live from the Channel 4 website. I've mentioned that it's blocked (not to mention all my suggestions for getting around it), but they don't seem to be getting the idea. It seems unlikely that they'll provide us with useful suggestions, but I've been wrong before. I think they'll end up wanting those DVDs.
Carol
>
> Carol
> No problem with using the full quote, you never know but it may be seen by people who could do something.
Carol responds:
Thanks, George. Unfortunately, despite all my posts to the contrary, they're just becoming aware that there *is* a documentary and are under the impression that they can watch it live from the Channel 4 website. I've mentioned that it's blocked (not to mention all my suggestions for getting around it), but they don't seem to be getting the idea. It seems unlikely that they'll provide us with useful suggestions, but I've been wrong before. I think they'll end up wanting those DVDs.
Carol
Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth)
2013-02-01 00:26:35
"EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> Wednesday...All your questions are answered in Maligned King and R E Collins Secret History (Part 2)....Annette covers this topic very well in Chapter 1 "Poisoned' in Maligned King...and also goes into Collins theory that Edward could have been poisoned in 'Secret History'. Annette suggests the possibility that EW fearing that after nearly 20 years of marriage, being slightly older than Edward and after 10 pregnancies that her charms may have been on the wane for Edward "her latest matrimonial humiliation had come at the hands of Elizabeth Lambert". Elizabeth's motive in poisoning E may have been to remove the crown from the head of a 'dangerously bored husband and place it on that of a doting son" However I dont want to quote Annette too much on here as I dont have her permission and she may not been happy about it. (I do wish Annette would come back!)
>
> Eileen
Carol responds:
I'm pretty sure that Annette wouldn't mind your quoting a few sentences or even a paragraph from her book since it falls under the Fair Use provision of copyright law. But you're right that it's much better to go to the source, and any member of this list who hasn't yet read "The Maligned King" is missing an important and very recent source. However, Wednesday and others might want to hold off on buying it quite yet as Annette is working on a revised edition that corrects a few small errors and will incorporate the research findings from the Leicester dig when they're available. Maybe when the book is published, she'll rejoin us.
Carol
>
>
> Wednesday...All your questions are answered in Maligned King and R E Collins Secret History (Part 2)....Annette covers this topic very well in Chapter 1 "Poisoned' in Maligned King...and also goes into Collins theory that Edward could have been poisoned in 'Secret History'. Annette suggests the possibility that EW fearing that after nearly 20 years of marriage, being slightly older than Edward and after 10 pregnancies that her charms may have been on the wane for Edward "her latest matrimonial humiliation had come at the hands of Elizabeth Lambert". Elizabeth's motive in poisoning E may have been to remove the crown from the head of a 'dangerously bored husband and place it on that of a doting son" However I dont want to quote Annette too much on here as I dont have her permission and she may not been happy about it. (I do wish Annette would come back!)
>
> Eileen
Carol responds:
I'm pretty sure that Annette wouldn't mind your quoting a few sentences or even a paragraph from her book since it falls under the Fair Use provision of copyright law. But you're right that it's much better to go to the source, and any member of this list who hasn't yet read "The Maligned King" is missing an important and very recent source. However, Wednesday and others might want to hold off on buying it quite yet as Annette is working on a revised edition that corrects a few small errors and will incorporate the research findings from the Leicester dig when they're available. Maybe when the book is published, she'll rejoin us.
Carol
Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth)
2013-02-01 02:21:05
I am stupido! I have Annette's book and have read it and Collins' theory, but didn't remember the alleged poison was arsenic. My eyes went too fast for my brain, must re-read and slow down.
Thanks for everyone's patience.
~Weds
--- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
>
> Wednesday, Richard Collins' theory is that Edward was no longer the goose that laid the golden eggs for the Woodvilles and therefore he suggests that the Woodvilles would have been better off finding a new goose e.g.Edward V.
>
> He quotes Lieutenant Colombo who apparently had a theory that" in investigating a crime you look for a break in the pattern of behaviour. If someone dies unexpectedly and inexplicably, look for the one who seems to have expected him to die and you have your suspect." He then goes on to detail the strange behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers in the months before Edward's death citing documentary evidence. Richard Collins worked in a large provincial hospital and he described the circumstances of Edward's death, as if he was describing a patient, to his colleagues. He asked 30 people and 3 of them suggested arsenic.
>
> Regards
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
> >
> > I can see where a theory might be floated that:
> >
> > 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
> >
> > 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
> >
> > 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
> >
> > 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
> >
> > But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
> >
> > "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
> >
> > "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
> >
> > As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
Thanks for everyone's patience.
~Weds
--- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
>
> Wednesday, Richard Collins' theory is that Edward was no longer the goose that laid the golden eggs for the Woodvilles and therefore he suggests that the Woodvilles would have been better off finding a new goose e.g.Edward V.
>
> He quotes Lieutenant Colombo who apparently had a theory that" in investigating a crime you look for a break in the pattern of behaviour. If someone dies unexpectedly and inexplicably, look for the one who seems to have expected him to die and you have your suspect." He then goes on to detail the strange behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers in the months before Edward's death citing documentary evidence. Richard Collins worked in a large provincial hospital and he described the circumstances of Edward's death, as if he was describing a patient, to his colleagues. He asked 30 people and 3 of them suggested arsenic.
>
> Regards
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
> >
> > I can see where a theory might be floated that:
> >
> > 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
> >
> > 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
> >
> > 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
> >
> > 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
> >
> > But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
> >
> > "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
> >
> > "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
> >
> > As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
Re: Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Boswor
2013-02-01 04:17:41
wednesday_mc wrote:
"Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the
Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if
Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died? I
can see where a theory might be floated that:
1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a
message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who
sent the message?)
3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
4. This time, they got the dosage right.
But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
'Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive
saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer
vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and
excessive sweating.
'As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go
into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage,
it will happen a few days when the kidney fails.'
As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning
is a viable theory. Help?"
To answer your first question, the presumption would be that the Queen and
her family would expect to have more control over a King who was her son and
still a minor, than over Edward IV, who may very well have started losing
interest in his wife - and providing for her family.
If true, this might very well explain the apparent rush to have Edward (V)
crowned prior to Richard becoming Protector. As a crowned, and annointed,
monarch, Edward would have much more authority in any discussions about the
powers the Protector would have; which means, of course, the Woodvilles
would have that power.
The worst possible outcome for Richard would have been to be appointed
Protector without having the necessary authority and I personally can't see
Edward, backed by his Woodville relations, allowing that. However, if
Richard assumed the Protectorate first, then HE would be in a position of
strength and be able to ensure that the Protector would not only have the
responsibility, but also the authority to carry out his job.
IF Edward WAS poisoned, your items 1 and 2 make perfect sense. As for who
sent the message to York, I would think Richard would have some well-wisher
at Court.
Then your item 3 and was followed by number 4.
Vomiting, diarrhoea, stomach cramps and excessive sweating are excellent
signs of food poisoning, which is roughly what the official verdict was. I
don't know if seizures could be thought of as a symptom of a stroke, but if
they are, then what's to say that if Edward suffered any (did he?) the
"doctors" didn't put it down to a stroke due to Edward's physical condition
having been weakened, first by his excesses, then by the "illness".
I believe the ten days includes both the first illness, followed by a period
of recovery, then the final, fatal one. In other words, the first illness
was the failed attempt at poisoniing, there was a brief period of recovery,
then the second, successful poisoning.
Although it wouldn't surprise me to discover Edward HAD been poisoned,
Rivers' actions, which are a major support for this theory and certainly
appear suspicious, may have a perfectly innocent explanation.
People HAVE told me I'm too trusting...
Doug
"Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the
Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if
Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died? I
can see where a theory might be floated that:
1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a
message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who
sent the message?)
3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
4. This time, they got the dosage right.
But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
'Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive
saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer
vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and
excessive sweating.
'As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go
into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage,
it will happen a few days when the kidney fails.'
As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning
is a viable theory. Help?"
To answer your first question, the presumption would be that the Queen and
her family would expect to have more control over a King who was her son and
still a minor, than over Edward IV, who may very well have started losing
interest in his wife - and providing for her family.
If true, this might very well explain the apparent rush to have Edward (V)
crowned prior to Richard becoming Protector. As a crowned, and annointed,
monarch, Edward would have much more authority in any discussions about the
powers the Protector would have; which means, of course, the Woodvilles
would have that power.
The worst possible outcome for Richard would have been to be appointed
Protector without having the necessary authority and I personally can't see
Edward, backed by his Woodville relations, allowing that. However, if
Richard assumed the Protectorate first, then HE would be in a position of
strength and be able to ensure that the Protector would not only have the
responsibility, but also the authority to carry out his job.
IF Edward WAS poisoned, your items 1 and 2 make perfect sense. As for who
sent the message to York, I would think Richard would have some well-wisher
at Court.
Then your item 3 and was followed by number 4.
Vomiting, diarrhoea, stomach cramps and excessive sweating are excellent
signs of food poisoning, which is roughly what the official verdict was. I
don't know if seizures could be thought of as a symptom of a stroke, but if
they are, then what's to say that if Edward suffered any (did he?) the
"doctors" didn't put it down to a stroke due to Edward's physical condition
having been weakened, first by his excesses, then by the "illness".
I believe the ten days includes both the first illness, followed by a period
of recovery, then the final, fatal one. In other words, the first illness
was the failed attempt at poisoniing, there was a brief period of recovery,
then the second, successful poisoning.
Although it wouldn't surprise me to discover Edward HAD been poisoned,
Rivers' actions, which are a major support for this theory and certainly
appear suspicious, may have a perfectly innocent explanation.
People HAVE told me I'm too trusting...
Doug
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 10:49:59
Hi, Carol -
Point taken; nevertheless, this is not a public forum. While some messages
might crop up on a Google search, I am sure that one would not get a whole
thread. There is more or less access to archive messages depending on the
way the Forum is set up on Yahoogroups; for instance, it is possible if the
archives are "open" that members of the public could access them. But I
would be very surprised if non-members do in fact have access, as in my
experience it is usual practice to make the archives "members only."
(meaning "members of the group," not "members of the RIII Society.")
Regardless, my words stand - this is not a public forum (unlike, for
instance a chatroom, which is open to anyone; here members are screened).
However, it is possible to make it even more private if desired. I believe
there's an "over 18" section of Yahoogroups (where there was an Andy Serkis
group of which I was once a member) and it's possible for a group to be
removed from the usual index of Yahoogroups, so that you pretty well have to
know about it to find it, as was the case with a Tibetan Spaniel group of
which I was once a member. I guess it all depends on how much privacy the
listowner feels is desirable. I'm not too concerned, as long as there are no
instances of "list harvesting," in which email addresses are gathered for
the purposes of spam.
TTYL (smile)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> This is not a public forum. I hope that even if we are among fellow
> "nutters," we are also among friends. (smile)
Carol responds:
Actually, a Google search for certain topics will take people to some of our
posts. I've seen my own posts quoted. Whether the searchers can read all of
the posts without being a member, I don't know. (The other forum is members
only; this one isn't, so it's possible that a nonmember can read what we've
written but not respond.)
As for the topic at hand (Richard's ghost), it doesn't bother me as long as
it's not the version presented in "On the Trail of King Richard III,"
possibly the worst of the many bad Ricardian novels. Members should be free
to discuss it if they like; those who don't can skip to another topic--or
start a new one that's more to their liking.
Carol
Point taken; nevertheless, this is not a public forum. While some messages
might crop up on a Google search, I am sure that one would not get a whole
thread. There is more or less access to archive messages depending on the
way the Forum is set up on Yahoogroups; for instance, it is possible if the
archives are "open" that members of the public could access them. But I
would be very surprised if non-members do in fact have access, as in my
experience it is usual practice to make the archives "members only."
(meaning "members of the group," not "members of the RIII Society.")
Regardless, my words stand - this is not a public forum (unlike, for
instance a chatroom, which is open to anyone; here members are screened).
However, it is possible to make it even more private if desired. I believe
there's an "over 18" section of Yahoogroups (where there was an Andy Serkis
group of which I was once a member) and it's possible for a group to be
removed from the usual index of Yahoogroups, so that you pretty well have to
know about it to find it, as was the case with a Tibetan Spaniel group of
which I was once a member. I guess it all depends on how much privacy the
listowner feels is desirable. I'm not too concerned, as long as there are no
instances of "list harvesting," in which email addresses are gathered for
the purposes of spam.
TTYL (smile)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> This is not a public forum. I hope that even if we are among fellow
> "nutters," we are also among friends. (smile)
Carol responds:
Actually, a Google search for certain topics will take people to some of our
posts. I've seen my own posts quoted. Whether the searchers can read all of
the posts without being a member, I don't know. (The other forum is members
only; this one isn't, so it's possible that a nonmember can read what we've
written but not respond.)
As for the topic at hand (Richard's ghost), it doesn't bother me as long as
it's not the version presented in "On the Trail of King Richard III,"
possibly the worst of the many bad Ricardian novels. Members should be free
to discuss it if they like; those who don't can skip to another topic--or
start a new one that's more to their liking.
Carol
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 11:02:25
For fun, I just purchased a copy of it off ABE books - for less than 10 pounds. The prices on Amazon are off the charts. Sounds enjoyable! Maire.
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
>
> (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
>
> It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
>
> Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
>
> We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
>
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Last night for amusement I thought I'd re-visit Dening (and Collins) to see whether anything that was said by Richard about his death at Bosworth at the 'seance' matched the skeleton.
>
> (For those of you who don't know Dening was an ex-soldier and clergyman who had an 'experience' at Middleham (with others) and consulted a psychic. He managed to 'get through' to Richard in the early 1990s).
>
> It's been scoffed at a few times on here through the years, but I discount nothing however outlandish it may seem, and Annette did use the bit about the supposed poisoning of Edward IV in her book.
>
> Well it was interesting. When asked about Bosworth R said he felt 'cheated' because he didn't have the chance to confront the one who killed him. It happened very suddenly, he died very suddenly and he didn't see it coming. All that would seem very consistent with a blow on the back of the head! (I know there is at least one other source that said he was struck from behind; but I don't think Dening knew it).
>
> We shall probably now find out it isn't Richard! Hilary
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 11:21:14
My chief concern is that forum posts do turn up, as George says, in searches on the net.
Let us not forget how many so-called Christians, and extreme Muslims cherry pick their quotes from religious texts to attack every other ordinary person's beliefs and standards.
Those aiming to discredit Ricardians will cherry pick any discussion like the current one.
I remember going to a Society meeting, my first in London.
The talk was about Medieval alabasters. fascinating, until the magnificent Torrigiano's of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were shown.
The entire front row of "ladies of a certain age" jumped up, fists flying, mouths hissing and booing. My friend and I got out as fast as we could. Fortunately my love for Richard took me back to later meetings, but with trepidation. My friend never returned to see 'those nutters' again.
Get my point?
I hope so.
Paul
On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:51, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Paul
>
> You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
>
>> Paul
>> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
>> G
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
>>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
>>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
>>>> Skeptically
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> '
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Let us not forget how many so-called Christians, and extreme Muslims cherry pick their quotes from religious texts to attack every other ordinary person's beliefs and standards.
Those aiming to discredit Ricardians will cherry pick any discussion like the current one.
I remember going to a Society meeting, my first in London.
The talk was about Medieval alabasters. fascinating, until the magnificent Torrigiano's of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were shown.
The entire front row of "ladies of a certain age" jumped up, fists flying, mouths hissing and booing. My friend and I got out as fast as we could. Fortunately my love for Richard took me back to later meetings, but with trepidation. My friend never returned to see 'those nutters' again.
Get my point?
I hope so.
Paul
On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:51, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Paul
>
> You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
>
>> Paul
>> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
>> G
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
>>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
>>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
>>>> Skeptically
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> '
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 11:22:55
On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:48, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> While some messages
> might crop up on a Google search, I am sure that one would not get a whole
> thread.
This a bit naive of you. Computer nerds can get into anything. If someone can hack into the CIA the Society Forum will be a doddle!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
> While some messages
> might crop up on a Google search, I am sure that one would not get a whole
> thread.
This a bit naive of you. Computer nerds can get into anything. If someone can hack into the CIA the Society Forum will be a doddle!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 12:37:38
Yes, of course, Paul, I assume that anything can be hacked. But then,
frankly, I don't mind if a hacker gets my emails. Much good may it do them!
LOL!
The fact remains - I do not see any reason why our discussions here should
be restricted because of fear of some hypothetical idjet "out there." Most
discussion groups even allow "Off Topic" posts, as long as they are labeled
"OT" in the subject line. However, I believe that the discussion of Dening's
book is "On Topic" for this Forum. There are at least several here who
obviously don't approve of the discussion. The remedy then is to delete the
offending posts.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:23 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and
Bosworth
On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:48, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> While some messages
> might crop up on a Google search, I am sure that one would not get a whole
> thread.
This a bit naive of you. Computer nerds can get into anything. If someone
can hack into the CIA the Society Forum will be a doddle!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
frankly, I don't mind if a hacker gets my emails. Much good may it do them!
LOL!
The fact remains - I do not see any reason why our discussions here should
be restricted because of fear of some hypothetical idjet "out there." Most
discussion groups even allow "Off Topic" posts, as long as they are labeled
"OT" in the subject line. However, I believe that the discussion of Dening's
book is "On Topic" for this Forum. There are at least several here who
obviously don't approve of the discussion. The remedy then is to delete the
offending posts.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:23 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and
Bosworth
On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:48, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> While some messages
> might crop up on a Google search, I am sure that one would not get a whole
> thread.
This a bit naive of you. Computer nerds can get into anything. If someone
can hack into the CIA the Society Forum will be a doddle!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 13:24:29
Hi All,
I am SO sorry that what I thought was a bit of lighter hearted diversion from Channel 4 and Tony Robinson has caused such (friendly I hope) contention.
I was certainly able to google and access the forum, (though not its members and links etc) before I joined. In fact that's why I chose to join. However, I doubt whether anyone but those with a real interest or trolls would choose to do so. As for the discussion, Dening was a reputable member of the Society and as such is worthy of a 'hearing' -he writes very well, as both Eileen and I have said. If we're prepared to study Hicks, Weir, etc we should also cover everything, however outlandish it may be to some.
I would have thought those more likely to be affronted by us are the Cardinal Morton Appreciation Society (there must be one!) or .... Tony Robinson. With many smiles, honest Paul Hilary
--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Yes, of course, Paul, I assume that anything can be hacked. But then,
> frankly, I don't mind if a hacker gets my emails. Much good may it do them!
> LOL!
>
>
>
> The fact remains - I do not see any reason why our discussions here should
> be restricted because of fear of some hypothetical idjet "out there." Most
> discussion groups even allow "Off Topic" posts, as long as they are labeled
> "OT" in the subject line. However, I believe that the discussion of Dening's
> book is "On Topic" for this Forum. There are at least several here who
> obviously don't approve of the discussion. The remedy then is to delete the
> offending posts.
>
>
>
> TTFN (smile)
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and
> Bosworth
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:48, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > While some messages
> > might crop up on a Google search, I am sure that one would not get a whole
> > thread.
>
> This a bit naive of you. Computer nerds can get into anything. If someone
> can hack into the CIA the Society Forum will be a doddle!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am SO sorry that what I thought was a bit of lighter hearted diversion from Channel 4 and Tony Robinson has caused such (friendly I hope) contention.
I was certainly able to google and access the forum, (though not its members and links etc) before I joined. In fact that's why I chose to join. However, I doubt whether anyone but those with a real interest or trolls would choose to do so. As for the discussion, Dening was a reputable member of the Society and as such is worthy of a 'hearing' -he writes very well, as both Eileen and I have said. If we're prepared to study Hicks, Weir, etc we should also cover everything, however outlandish it may be to some.
I would have thought those more likely to be affronted by us are the Cardinal Morton Appreciation Society (there must be one!) or .... Tony Robinson. With many smiles, honest Paul Hilary
--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Yes, of course, Paul, I assume that anything can be hacked. But then,
> frankly, I don't mind if a hacker gets my emails. Much good may it do them!
> LOL!
>
>
>
> The fact remains - I do not see any reason why our discussions here should
> be restricted because of fear of some hypothetical idjet "out there." Most
> discussion groups even allow "Off Topic" posts, as long as they are labeled
> "OT" in the subject line. However, I believe that the discussion of Dening's
> book is "On Topic" for this Forum. There are at least several here who
> obviously don't approve of the discussion. The remedy then is to delete the
> offending posts.
>
>
>
> TTFN (smile)
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and
> Bosworth
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:48, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > While some messages
> > might crop up on a Google search, I am sure that one would not get a whole
> > thread.
>
> This a bit naive of you. Computer nerds can get into anything. If someone
> can hack into the CIA the Society Forum will be a doddle!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 13:55:58
This is the delight and the bane of chat groups. I am in touch with a large group of my high school group. We have experienced several of our fellows who tried to take over the group, promoting one or another agenda. Most dropped off when no one responded, and in one case one person was "asked off". But then who among us has not encountered a friend who was just a few bubbles from center? You either accept or just shrug it off.
On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
My chief concern is that forum posts do turn up, as George says, in searches on the net.
Let us not forget how many so-called Christians, and extreme Muslims cherry pick their quotes from religious texts to attack every other ordinary person's beliefs and standards.
Those aiming to discredit Ricardians will cherry pick any discussion like the current one.
I remember going to a Society meeting, my first in London.
The talk was about Medieval alabasters. fascinating, until the magnificent Torrigiano's of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were shown.
The entire front row of "ladies of a certain age" jumped up, fists flying, mouths hissing and booing. My friend and I got out as fast as we could. Fortunately my love for Richard took me back to later meetings, but with trepidation. My friend never returned to see 'those nutters' again.
Get my point?
I hope so.
Paul
On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:51, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Paul
>
> You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
>
>> Paul
>> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
>> G
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
>>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
>>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
>>>> Skeptically
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> '
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
My chief concern is that forum posts do turn up, as George says, in searches on the net.
Let us not forget how many so-called Christians, and extreme Muslims cherry pick their quotes from religious texts to attack every other ordinary person's beliefs and standards.
Those aiming to discredit Ricardians will cherry pick any discussion like the current one.
I remember going to a Society meeting, my first in London.
The talk was about Medieval alabasters. fascinating, until the magnificent Torrigiano's of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were shown.
The entire front row of "ladies of a certain age" jumped up, fists flying, mouths hissing and booing. My friend and I got out as fast as we could. Fortunately my love for Richard took me back to later meetings, but with trepidation. My friend never returned to see 'those nutters' again.
Get my point?
I hope so.
Paul
On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:51, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Paul
>
> You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
>
>> Paul
>> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
>> G
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
>>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
>>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
>>>> Skeptically
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
>>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> '
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Boswor
2013-02-01 14:04:11
Ah..Wednesday..I will have to check if Annette mentions the word 'arsenic' but Collins definitely does with an explanation of why...
I believe you posted you had 'Secret History' book or were about to buy it....then you will know it is a very interesting theory....Eileen
On 1 Feb 2013, at 02:21, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I am stupido! I have Annette's book and have read it and Collins' theory, but didn't remember the alleged poison was arsenic. My eyes went too fast for my brain, must re-read and slow down.
>
> Thanks for everyone's patience.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > Wednesday, Richard Collins' theory is that Edward was no longer the goose that laid the golden eggs for the Woodvilles and therefore he suggests that the Woodvilles would have been better off finding a new goose e.g.Edward V.
> >
> > He quotes Lieutenant Colombo who apparently had a theory that" in investigating a crime you look for a break in the pattern of behaviour. If someone dies unexpectedly and inexplicably, look for the one who seems to have expected him to die and you have your suspect." He then goes on to detail the strange behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers in the months before Edward's death citing documentary evidence. Richard Collins worked in a large provincial hospital and he described the circumstances of Edward's death, as if he was describing a patient, to his colleagues. He asked 30 people and 3 of them suggested arsenic.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> > >
> > > Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
> > >
> > > I can see where a theory might be floated that:
> > >
> > > 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
> > >
> > > 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
> > >
> > > 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
> > >
> > > 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
> > >
> > > But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
> > >
> > > "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
> > >
> > > "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
> > >
> > > As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> >
>
>
I believe you posted you had 'Secret History' book or were about to buy it....then you will know it is a very interesting theory....Eileen
On 1 Feb 2013, at 02:21, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I am stupido! I have Annette's book and have read it and Collins' theory, but didn't remember the alleged poison was arsenic. My eyes went too fast for my brain, must re-read and slow down.
>
> Thanks for everyone's patience.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > Wednesday, Richard Collins' theory is that Edward was no longer the goose that laid the golden eggs for the Woodvilles and therefore he suggests that the Woodvilles would have been better off finding a new goose e.g.Edward V.
> >
> > He quotes Lieutenant Colombo who apparently had a theory that" in investigating a crime you look for a break in the pattern of behaviour. If someone dies unexpectedly and inexplicably, look for the one who seems to have expected him to die and you have your suspect." He then goes on to detail the strange behaviour of Anthony Lord Rivers in the months before Edward's death citing documentary evidence. Richard Collins worked in a large provincial hospital and he described the circumstances of Edward's death, as if he was describing a patient, to his colleagues. He asked 30 people and 3 of them suggested arsenic.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> > >
> > > Color me confused, but how would E4 be of more use dead than alive to the Woodvilles, who owed every bit of their power to him? Or, alternately, if Anthony was the poisoner, what advantage would he have if the king died?
> > >
> > > I can see where a theory might be floated that:
> > >
> > > 1. Someone tried to poison E4, and he got very sick.
> > >
> > > 2. They thought they got the dosage right and he was going to die. Thus, a message was sent to York that he had died. (Which begs the question, who sent the message?)
> > >
> > > 3. E4 recovered, so they had to try again.
> > >
> > > 4. This time, they got the dosage right.
> > >
> > > But why arsenic? What symptoms did he have of the following (from
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/arsenic_poisoning.shtml):
> > >
> > > "Acute arsenic poisoning causes a metallic taste in the mouth, excessive saliva production and problems swallowing. The next stage is to suffer vomiting and diarrhoea coupled with garlic-like breath, stomach cramps and excessive sweating.
> > >
> > > "As the poison's effects progress, the patient will suffer seizures and go into shock, dying within a few hours. If death does not occur at this stage, it will happen a few days when the kidney fails."
> > >
> > > As E4 took what...10 days?...to die, I'm not seeing where arsenic poisoning is a viable theory. Help?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Possible Poisoning - E4 (Was Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Boswor
2013-02-01 14:37:09
Hi Carol...Oh good....as long as I know. What I was a bit worried about was someone posting and disputing something Annette had written, and I had posted ,while she is not on here posting seems a bit unfair. Eileen
On 1 Feb 2013, at 00:26, justcarol67 wrote:
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Wednesday...All your questions are answered in Maligned King and R E Collins Secret History (Part 2)....Annette covers this topic very well in Chapter 1 "Poisoned' in Maligned King...and also goes into Collins theory that Edward could have been poisoned in 'Secret History'. Annette suggests the possibility that EW fearing that after nearly 20 years of marriage, being slightly older than Edward and after 10 pregnancies that her charms may have been on the wane for Edward "her latest matrimonial humiliation had come at the hands of Elizabeth Lambert". Elizabeth's motive in poisoning E may have been to remove the crown from the head of a 'dangerously bored husband and place it on that of a doting son" However I dont want to quote Annette too much on here as I dont have her permission and she may not been happy about it. (I do wish Annette would come back!)
> >
> > Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm pretty sure that Annette wouldn't mind your quoting a few sentences or even a paragraph from her book since it falls under the Fair Use provision of copyright law. But you're right that it's much better to go to the source, and any member of this list who hasn't yet read "The Maligned King" is missing an important and very recent source. However, Wednesday and others might want to hold off on buying it quite yet as Annette is working on a revised edition that corrects a few small errors and will incorporate the research findings from the Leicester dig when they're available. Maybe when the book is published, she'll rejoin us.
>
> Carol
>
>
On 1 Feb 2013, at 00:26, justcarol67 wrote:
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Wednesday...All your questions are answered in Maligned King and R E Collins Secret History (Part 2)....Annette covers this topic very well in Chapter 1 "Poisoned' in Maligned King...and also goes into Collins theory that Edward could have been poisoned in 'Secret History'. Annette suggests the possibility that EW fearing that after nearly 20 years of marriage, being slightly older than Edward and after 10 pregnancies that her charms may have been on the wane for Edward "her latest matrimonial humiliation had come at the hands of Elizabeth Lambert". Elizabeth's motive in poisoning E may have been to remove the crown from the head of a 'dangerously bored husband and place it on that of a doting son" However I dont want to quote Annette too much on here as I dont have her permission and she may not been happy about it. (I do wish Annette would come back!)
> >
> > Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm pretty sure that Annette wouldn't mind your quoting a few sentences or even a paragraph from her book since it falls under the Fair Use provision of copyright law. But you're right that it's much better to go to the source, and any member of this list who hasn't yet read "The Maligned King" is missing an important and very recent source. However, Wednesday and others might want to hold off on buying it quite yet as Annette is working on a revised edition that corrects a few small errors and will incorporate the research findings from the Leicester dig when they're available. Maybe when the book is published, she'll rejoin us.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 14:49:00
Pamela, I honestly don't think anyone here, myself included, was trying to promote an agenda - we were having a discussion about a rather entertaining book (fact or fiction who knows).
Paul, you'll see my other post. I think this really is a storm in a teacup. I didn't join the Society for many years because I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him. But people are entitled to their beliefs and, as our members, should be respected and defended (should such cherry-picking occur).
That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> This is the delight and the bane of chat groups. I am in touch with a large group of my high school group. We have experienced several of our fellows who tried to take over the group, promoting one or another agenda. Most dropped off when no one responded, and in one case one person was "asked off". But then who among us has not encountered a friend who was just a few bubbles from center? You either accept or just shrug it off.
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" > wrote:
>
>
>
> My chief concern is that forum posts do turn up, as George says, in searches on the net.
> Let us not forget how many so-called Christians, and extreme Muslims cherry pick their quotes from religious texts to attack every other ordinary person's beliefs and standards.
> Those aiming to discredit Ricardians will cherry pick any discussion like the current one.
>
> I remember going to a Society meeting, my first in London.
> The talk was about Medieval alabasters. fascinating, until the magnificent Torrigiano's of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were shown.
> The entire front row of "ladies of a certain age" jumped up, fists flying, mouths hissing and booing. My friend and I got out as fast as we could. Fortunately my love for Richard took me back to later meetings, but with trepidation. My friend never returned to see 'those nutters' again.
> Get my point?
> I hope so.
> Paul
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:51, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Paul
> >
> > You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: eileen bates eileenbates147@... >
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@... > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > '
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Paul, you'll see my other post. I think this really is a storm in a teacup. I didn't join the Society for many years because I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him. But people are entitled to their beliefs and, as our members, should be respected and defended (should such cherry-picking occur).
That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> This is the delight and the bane of chat groups. I am in touch with a large group of my high school group. We have experienced several of our fellows who tried to take over the group, promoting one or another agenda. Most dropped off when no one responded, and in one case one person was "asked off". But then who among us has not encountered a friend who was just a few bubbles from center? You either accept or just shrug it off.
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" > wrote:
>
>
>
> My chief concern is that forum posts do turn up, as George says, in searches on the net.
> Let us not forget how many so-called Christians, and extreme Muslims cherry pick their quotes from religious texts to attack every other ordinary person's beliefs and standards.
> Those aiming to discredit Ricardians will cherry pick any discussion like the current one.
>
> I remember going to a Society meeting, my first in London.
> The talk was about Medieval alabasters. fascinating, until the magnificent Torrigiano's of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were shown.
> The entire front row of "ladies of a certain age" jumped up, fists flying, mouths hissing and booing. My friend and I got out as fast as we could. Fortunately my love for Richard took me back to later meetings, but with trepidation. My friend never returned to see 'those nutters' again.
> Get my point?
> I hope so.
> Paul
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:51, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Paul
> >
> > You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: eileen bates eileenbates147@... >
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@... > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > '
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 15:51:53
That is hilarious...... Thanks for the update and the explanation.
On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:49 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Pamela, I honestly don't think anyone here, myself included, was trying to promote an agenda - we were having a discussion about a rather entertaining book (fact or fiction who knows).
Paul, you'll see my other post. I think this really is a storm in a teacup. I didn't join the Society for many years because I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him. But people are entitled to their beliefs and, as our members, should be respected and defended (should such cherry-picking occur).
That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> This is the delight and the bane of chat groups. I am in touch with a large group of my high school group. We have experienced several of our fellows who tried to take over the group, promoting one or another agenda. Most dropped off when no one responded, and in one case one person was "asked off". But then who among us has not encountered a friend who was just a few bubbles from center? You either accept or just shrug it off.
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" > wrote:
>
>
>
> My chief concern is that forum posts do turn up, as George says, in searches on the net.
> Let us not forget how many so-called Christians, and extreme Muslims cherry pick their quotes from religious texts to attack every other ordinary person's beliefs and standards.
> Those aiming to discredit Ricardians will cherry pick any discussion like the current one.
>
> I remember going to a Society meeting, my first in London.
> The talk was about Medieval alabasters. fascinating, until the magnificent Torrigiano's of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were shown.
> The entire front row of "ladies of a certain age" jumped up, fists flying, mouths hissing and booing. My friend and I got out as fast as we could. Fortunately my love for Richard took me back to later meetings, but with trepidation. My friend never returned to see 'those nutters' again.
> Get my point?
> I hope so.
> Paul
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:51, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Paul
> >
> > You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: eileen bates eileenbates147@... >
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@... > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > '
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:49 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
Pamela, I honestly don't think anyone here, myself included, was trying to promote an agenda - we were having a discussion about a rather entertaining book (fact or fiction who knows).
Paul, you'll see my other post. I think this really is a storm in a teacup. I didn't join the Society for many years because I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him. But people are entitled to their beliefs and, as our members, should be respected and defended (should such cherry-picking occur).
That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> This is the delight and the bane of chat groups. I am in touch with a large group of my high school group. We have experienced several of our fellows who tried to take over the group, promoting one or another agenda. Most dropped off when no one responded, and in one case one person was "asked off". But then who among us has not encountered a friend who was just a few bubbles from center? You either accept or just shrug it off.
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" > wrote:
>
>
>
> My chief concern is that forum posts do turn up, as George says, in searches on the net.
> Let us not forget how many so-called Christians, and extreme Muslims cherry pick their quotes from religious texts to attack every other ordinary person's beliefs and standards.
> Those aiming to discredit Ricardians will cherry pick any discussion like the current one.
>
> I remember going to a Society meeting, my first in London.
> The talk was about Medieval alabasters. fascinating, until the magnificent Torrigiano's of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were shown.
> The entire front row of "ladies of a certain age" jumped up, fists flying, mouths hissing and booing. My friend and I got out as fast as we could. Fortunately my love for Richard took me back to later meetings, but with trepidation. My friend never returned to see 'those nutters' again.
> Get my point?
> I hope so.
> Paul
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:51, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Paul
> >
> > You really do need to re-read and interpret my orginal post. To say that we have read, want to read, or enjoy reading Dening doesn't mean that we believe, don't believe. or want to believe what he 'claims', but all dimensions are worthy of exploration. Dening is no different to novelists or to unsupported interpretations in secondary sources. If we don't at least read them, then others could equally claim we have closed minds. If having an open mind means you're a nutter, then count me in - and I haven't even declared whether I believe him or not. Actually, like George I don't have any evidence in favour or to the contrary - it was just a discussion. And you don't need any foil - it was just a (diverting) discussion.- honest. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: eileen bates eileenbates147@... >
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 19:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> > Hahahahaha....Im sure you will both look divine and/or impressive...:0)
> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 18:53, George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> >> Paul
> >> I will send you some of my extra thick aluminum foil ( for protection)
> >> G
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you George for putting politely what I have been simmering about the past few hours!
> >>> There are a lot of people out there only too happy to call us Ricardians nutters. This kind of thing gives them lots of ammunition.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Jan 2013, at 17:26, George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't we have enough to keep us busy in this dimension, without heading off in the somewhat questionable side of seances, crystal balls and pseudo science?
> >>>> It's not that I don't disbelieve however I have not had any tangible evidence to the contrary
> >>>> Skeptically
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@... > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone had a conversation with Dening regarding phenomenon at Middleham and wrote about it here online:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ghosts.org.uk/ghost/3220/haunted/village/knightly-ghosts/middleham.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Selangor 13" has read Dening's book and comments on remarks "R3" made:
> >>>>> http://www.historum.com/european-history/33932-richard-iii-england-17.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > '
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 16:42:00
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> My chief concern is that forum posts do turn up, as George says, in searches on the net. [snip]
Carol responds:
Er, that was me.
Carol
>
> My chief concern is that forum posts do turn up, as George says, in searches on the net. [snip]
Carol responds:
Er, that was me.
Carol
Re: New information re broadcast
2013-02-01 17:53:37
They may eventually sell the broadcast rights of this program or a US broadcaster such as PBS or one of the networks, or cable outlets. Will depend on the interest generated.
V.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, Jan 31, 2013 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
Carol
No problem with using the full quote, you never know but it may be seen by people who could do something.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
> >
> > Dear George,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
> >
> > We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
> >
> > I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
> >
> > Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve Reynolds
> > Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
>
> Carol responds:
>
> George, is it all right if I quote this message on the other forum? I can omit your name if you prefer.
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Carol
>
>
V.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, Jan 31, 2013 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
Carol
No problem with using the full quote, you never know but it may be seen by people who could do something.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
> >
> > Dear George,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
> >
> > We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
> >
> > I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
> >
> > Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve Reynolds
> > Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
>
> Carol responds:
>
> George, is it all right if I quote this message on the other forum? I can omit your name if you prefer.
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: New information re broadcast Correction
2013-02-01 17:56:09
They may eventuall sell the broacast rights to a US broadcaster or cable outlet. Not to worry.
Sorry for the typo.
V.
-----Original Message-----
From: fairerichard3 <fairerichard3@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 12:53 pm
Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
They may eventually sell the broadcast rights of this program or a US broadcaster such as PBS or one of the networks, or cable outlets. Will depend on the interest generated.
V.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
To: >
Sent: Thu, Jan 31, 2013 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
Carol
No problem with using the full quote, you never know but it may be seen by people who could do something.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
> >
> > Dear George,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
> >
> > We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
> >
> > I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
> >
> > Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve Reynolds
> > Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
>
> Carol responds:
>
> George, is it all right if I quote this message on the other forum? I can omit your name if you prefer.
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Carol
>
>
Sorry for the typo.
V.
-----Original Message-----
From: fairerichard3 <fairerichard3@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 12:53 pm
Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
They may eventually sell the broadcast rights of this program or a US broadcaster such as PBS or one of the networks, or cable outlets. Will depend on the interest generated.
V.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
To: >
Sent: Thu, Jan 31, 2013 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: New information re broadcast
Carol
No problem with using the full quote, you never know but it may be seen by people who could do something.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I have contacted channel 4 programming to find out if it is possible to receive coverage in the USA. This is the reply
> >
> > Dear George,
> >
> > Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RICHARD III: The King in the Car Park.
> >
> > We appreciate your interest in our programming, unfortunately as Channel 4 is a UK Broadcaster, we only have the rights to broadcast our channels in the UK and some of our digital channels in the Republic of Ireland. As such we are unable to make an alternative suggestion as to how you might view this programme.
> >
> > I am sorry we could not be of further assistance.
> >
> > Thank you again for taking the time to contact us here at Channel 4 and for your interest in our programming.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve Reynolds
> > Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
>
> Carol responds:
>
> George, is it all right if I quote this message on the other forum? I can omit your name if you prefer.
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 18:55:29
>
> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
Marie
> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
Marie
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 18:59:28
Wouldn't Richard-the-pious have been the first to thump them for that if he still had coporeal limbs? What were they thinking?
~Weds
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.
~Weds
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 20:01:41
It sounds like something out of 'Rosemary's Baby'....Yikes....Eileen
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Wouldn't Richard-the-pious have been the first to thump them for that if he still had coporeal limbs? What were they thinking?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> > ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.
>
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Wouldn't Richard-the-pious have been the first to thump them for that if he still had coporeal limbs? What were they thinking?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> > ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 20:56:00
Marie and all, I think the public perception is changing..... Specially because of all the novels about Riii. I know a lot of people including myself who found Richard through novels and is now hooked:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:55 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> > With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>
> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>
> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>
> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>
> Marie
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:55 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> > With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>
> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>
> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>
> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>
> Marie
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 21:19:51
Hilary wrote:
>
> > ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.>
Wednesday responded:
>
> Wouldn't Richard-the-pious have been the first to thump them for that if he still had coporeal limbs? What were they thinking?
Carol comments:
Most likely, they were lighting memorial candles to pray for his soul, which Catholics still do, or simply as an act of remembrance. It's not like the medieval mourners who expected miracles to occur at "Saint" Henry VI's graveside.
It sounds like another misunderstanding. Now we see why a rumor in Vergil would be completely distorted fifty years later!
Carol
>
> > ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.>
Wednesday responded:
>
> Wouldn't Richard-the-pious have been the first to thump them for that if he still had coporeal limbs? What were they thinking?
Carol comments:
Most likely, they were lighting memorial candles to pray for his soul, which Catholics still do, or simply as an act of remembrance. It's not like the medieval mourners who expected miracles to occur at "Saint" Henry VI's graveside.
It sounds like another misunderstanding. Now we see why a rumor in Vergil would be completely distorted fifty years later!
Carol
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 22:11:18
It was, what 10 years' ago, and I'm only repeating what she told me when we got talking about the Society. She was a very matter-of fact-lady and indeed neither of us then were ' of a certain age' so I have no reason to doubt her. But yes, I do agree with all your comments. See, being able to read the forums did actually convince me at least that you were all sane. It can work both ways!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 20:01
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
It sounds like something out of 'Rosemary's Baby'....Yikes....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Wouldn't Richard-the-pious have been the first to thump them for that if he still had coporeal limbs? What were they thinking?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> > ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 20:01
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
It sounds like something out of 'Rosemary's Baby'....Yikes....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Wouldn't Richard-the-pious have been the first to thump them for that if he still had coporeal limbs? What were they thinking?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> > ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 22:39:16
Hi Marie,
I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge). But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour! It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too! So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
Marie
I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge). But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour! It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too! So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
Marie
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-01 22:48:08
She was Head of Business Studies, so one could say, very down to earth and found it disturbing. I don't think she was expecting to pray at a secular meeting - she was expecting the OHPs to come out, a lecture and a fruitful debate to follow! But I agree about distortion. I wasn't there, I just received her comments - there begins rumour. Hilary
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 21:19
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hilary wrote:
>
> > ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.>
Wednesday responded:
>
> Wouldn't Richard-the-pious have been the first to thump them for that if he still had coporeal limbs? What were they thinking?
Carol comments:
Most likely, they were lighting memorial candles to pray for his soul, which Catholics still do, or simply as an act of remembrance. It's not like the medieval mourners who expected miracles to occur at "Saint" Henry VI's graveside.
It sounds like another misunderstanding. Now we see why a rumor in Vergil would be completely distorted fifty years later!
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 21:19
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
Hilary wrote:
>
> > ...I had a colleague who went to a meeting and fled when they lit candles round Richard's portrait and started to pray to him.>
Wednesday responded:
>
> Wouldn't Richard-the-pious have been the first to thump them for that if he still had coporeal limbs? What were they thinking?
Carol comments:
Most likely, they were lighting memorial candles to pray for his soul, which Catholics still do, or simply as an act of remembrance. It's not like the medieval mourners who expected miracles to occur at "Saint" Henry VI's graveside.
It sounds like another misunderstanding. Now we see why a rumor in Vergil would be completely distorted fifty years later!
Carol
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-02 00:08:33
I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
Marie
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Marie,
> Â
> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
> Â
> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
> Â
> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
> Â
> Â Â Â
> ________________________________
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Â
>
>
> >
> > That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> > With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>
> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>
> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>
> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
Marie
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Marie,
> Â
> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
> Â
> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
> Â
> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
> Â
> Â Â Â
> ________________________________
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Â
>
>
> >
> > That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> > With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>
> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>
> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>
> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-02 10:40:33
I get the impression Schama is quite left wing - in his 'History' he lost his way after the seventeenth century by banging on about the working classes etc (my subject is Soc and Econ Hist so I have no problem there - but it didn't fit in that programme). Could be a pupil of Hobsbawm? I think we were saying roughly the same thing re the other. What I should have said, is that because 'our historians' are less well-known except to us (with perhaps the exception of Pollard) scholarship in this area can be seen by outsiders as lightweight. People of Ross's stature, whether you agreed with him or not, gave it a sort of gravitas. I like you hate these people being wheeled out for everything - the worst being PG commenting on Bosworth Field. At least they let Helen Castor do her own 'She-Wolves' and she did it well but was she 'sexy' enough for more contracts?
I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
Marie
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Marie,
> Â
> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
> Â
> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
> Â
> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
> Â
> Â Â Â
> ________________________________
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Â
>
>
> >
> > That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> > With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>
> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>
> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>
> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
Marie
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Marie,
> Â
> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
> Â
> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
> Â
> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
> Â
> Â Â Â
> ________________________________
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
> Â
>
>
> >
> > That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> > With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>
> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>
> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>
> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-02 11:04:14
His French Revolution book is certainly not left wing, far from it in fact. I also found his 17th century views far from Parliamentarian.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
On 2 Feb 2013, at 10:40, Hilary Jones wrote:
> I get the impression Schama is quite left wing - in his 'History' he lost his way after the seventeenth century by banging on about the working classes etc (my subject is Soc and Econ Hist so I have no problem there - but it didn't fit in that programme). Could be a pupil of Hobsbawm? I think we were saying roughly the same thing re the other. What I should have said, is that because 'our historians' are less well-known except to us (with perhaps the exception of Pollard) scholarship in this area can be seen by outsiders as lightweight. People of Ross's stature, whether you agreed with him or not, gave it a sort of gravitas. I like you hate these people being wheeled out for everything - the worst being PG commenting on Bosworth Field. At least they let Helen Castor do her own 'She-Wolves' and she did it well but was she 'sexy' enough for more contracts?
>
> I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
> Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
>
> By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marie,
>> Â
>> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
>> Â
>> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
>> Â
>> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
>> Â
>> Â Â Â
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: mariewalsh2003
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
>>> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>>
>> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>>
>> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>>
>> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
On 2 Feb 2013, at 10:40, Hilary Jones wrote:
> I get the impression Schama is quite left wing - in his 'History' he lost his way after the seventeenth century by banging on about the working classes etc (my subject is Soc and Econ Hist so I have no problem there - but it didn't fit in that programme). Could be a pupil of Hobsbawm? I think we were saying roughly the same thing re the other. What I should have said, is that because 'our historians' are less well-known except to us (with perhaps the exception of Pollard) scholarship in this area can be seen by outsiders as lightweight. People of Ross's stature, whether you agreed with him or not, gave it a sort of gravitas. I like you hate these people being wheeled out for everything - the worst being PG commenting on Bosworth Field. At least they let Helen Castor do her own 'She-Wolves' and she did it well but was she 'sexy' enough for more contracts?
>
> I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
> Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
>
> By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marie,
>> Â
>> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
>> Â
>> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
>> Â
>> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
>> Â
>> Â Â Â
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: mariewalsh2003
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
>>> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>>
>> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>>
>> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>>
>> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-02 11:27:04
Perhaps I should have said he appeared more into 'people' than great men - nothing wrong with that of course. On looking him up I see he was a student of J H Plumb who was also a bit that way inclined.
I've not read his French Revolution or Netherlands books. Haven't touched the French Revolution since the eighties but did once do an essay defending Robespierre. Hilary
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> His French Revolution book is certainly not left wing, far from it in fact. I also found his 17th century views far from Parliamentarian.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> On 2 Feb 2013, at 10:40, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > I get the impression Schama is quite left wing - in his 'History' he lost his way after the seventeenth century by banging on about the working classes etc (my subject is Soc and Econ Hist so I have no problem there - but it didn't fit in that programme). Could be a pupil of Hobsbawm? I think we were saying roughly the same thing re the other. What I should have said, is that because 'our historians' are less well-known except to us (with perhaps the exception of Pollard) scholarship in this area can be seen by outsiders as lightweight. People of Ross's stature, whether you agreed with him or not, gave it a sort of gravitas. I like you hate these people being wheeled out for everything - the worst being PG commenting on Bosworth Field. At least they let Helen Castor do her own 'She-Wolves' and she did it well but was she 'sexy' enough for more contracts?
> >
> > I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
> > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> >
> >
> > I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
> > Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
> >
> > By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Marie,
> >> Â
> >> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
> >> Â
> >> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
> >> Â
> >> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
> >> Â
> >> Â Â Â
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: mariewalsh2003
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> >>> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
> >>
> >> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
> >>
> >> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
> >>
> >> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
> >>
> >> Marie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
I've not read his French Revolution or Netherlands books. Haven't touched the French Revolution since the eighties but did once do an essay defending Robespierre. Hilary
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> His French Revolution book is certainly not left wing, far from it in fact. I also found his 17th century views far from Parliamentarian.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> On 2 Feb 2013, at 10:40, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > I get the impression Schama is quite left wing - in his 'History' he lost his way after the seventeenth century by banging on about the working classes etc (my subject is Soc and Econ Hist so I have no problem there - but it didn't fit in that programme). Could be a pupil of Hobsbawm? I think we were saying roughly the same thing re the other. What I should have said, is that because 'our historians' are less well-known except to us (with perhaps the exception of Pollard) scholarship in this area can be seen by outsiders as lightweight. People of Ross's stature, whether you agreed with him or not, gave it a sort of gravitas. I like you hate these people being wheeled out for everything - the worst being PG commenting on Bosworth Field. At least they let Helen Castor do her own 'She-Wolves' and she did it well but was she 'sexy' enough for more contracts?
> >
> > I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
> > Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >
> >
> >
> > I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
> > Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
> >
> > By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Marie,
> >> Â
> >> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
> >> Â
> >> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
> >> Â
> >> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
> >> Â
> >> Â Â Â
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: mariewalsh2003
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
> >> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
> >>> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
> >>
> >> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
> >>
> >> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
> >>
> >> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
> >>
> >> Marie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-02 15:19:28
I definitely have the impression he's left wing, personally at least. I'm sure he was down as a Blair supporter.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:03
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
His French Revolution book is certainly not left wing, far from it in fact. I also found his 17th century views far from Parliamentarian.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
On 2 Feb 2013, at 10:40, Hilary Jones wrote:
> I get the impression Schama is quite left wing - in his 'History' he lost his way after the seventeenth century by banging on about the working classes etc (my subject is Soc and Econ Hist so I have no problem there - but it didn't fit in that programme). Could be a pupil of Hobsbawm? I think we were saying roughly the same thing re the other. What I should have said, is that because 'our historians' are less well-known except to us (with perhaps the exception of Pollard) scholarship in this area can be seen by outsiders as lightweight. People of Ross's stature, whether you agreed with him or not, gave it a sort of gravitas. I like you hate these people being wheeled out for everything - the worst being PG commenting on Bosworth Field. At least they let Helen Castor do her own 'She-Wolves' and she did it well but was she 'sexy' enough for more contracts?
>
> I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
> Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
>
> By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marie,
>> Â
>> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
>> Â
>> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
>> Â
>> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
>> Â
>> Â Â Â
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: mariewalsh2003
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
>>> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>>
>> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>>
>> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>>
>> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:03
Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
His French Revolution book is certainly not left wing, far from it in fact. I also found his 17th century views far from Parliamentarian.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
On 2 Feb 2013, at 10:40, Hilary Jones wrote:
> I get the impression Schama is quite left wing - in his 'History' he lost his way after the seventeenth century by banging on about the working classes etc (my subject is Soc and Econ Hist so I have no problem there - but it didn't fit in that programme). Could be a pupil of Hobsbawm? I think we were saying roughly the same thing re the other. What I should have said, is that because 'our historians' are less well-known except to us (with perhaps the exception of Pollard) scholarship in this area can be seen by outsiders as lightweight. People of Ross's stature, whether you agreed with him or not, gave it a sort of gravitas. I like you hate these people being wheeled out for everything - the worst being PG commenting on Bosworth Field. At least they let Helen Castor do her own 'She-Wolves' and she did it well but was she 'sexy' enough for more contracts?
>
> I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
>
> I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
> Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
>
> By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marie,
>> Â
>> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
>> Â
>> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
>> Â
>> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
>> Â
>> Â Â Â
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: mariewalsh2003
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
>>> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>>
>> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>>
>> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>>
>> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
2013-02-03 10:37:50
Blair was a hero for David Cameron so he was never left wing! New Labour betrayed a lot of Laboour's left wing ideals.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
On 2 Feb 2013, at 15:19, liz williams wrote:
> I definitely have the impression he's left wing, personally at least. I'm sure he was down as a Blair supporter.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
> His French Revolution book is certainly not left wing, far from it in fact. I also found his 17th century views far from Parliamentarian.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> On 2 Feb 2013, at 10:40, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
>> I get the impression Schama is quite left wing - in his 'History' he lost his way after the seventeenth century by banging on about the working classes etc (my subject is Soc and Econ Hist so I have no problem there - but it didn't fit in that programme). Could be a pupil of Hobsbawm? I think we were saying roughly the same thing re the other. What I should have said, is that because 'our historians' are less well-known except to us (with perhaps the exception of Pollard) scholarship in this area can be seen by outsiders as lightweight. People of Ross's stature, whether you agreed with him or not, gave it a sort of gravitas. I like you hate these people being wheeled out for everything - the worst being PG commenting on Bosworth Field. At least they let Helen Castor do her own 'She-Wolves' and she did it well but was she 'sexy' enough for more contracts?
>>
>> I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: mariewalsh2003 mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>>
>>
>> I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
>> Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
>>
>> By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Marie,
>>> Â
>>> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
>>> Â
>>> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
>>> Â
>>> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
>>> Â
>>> Â Â Â
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: mariewalsh2003
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
>>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
>>>> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>>>
>>> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>>>
>>> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>>>
>>> Marie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
On 2 Feb 2013, at 15:19, liz williams wrote:
> I definitely have the impression he's left wing, personally at least. I'm sure he was down as a Blair supporter.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 11:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>
>
> His French Revolution book is certainly not left wing, far from it in fact. I also found his 17th century views far from Parliamentarian.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> On 2 Feb 2013, at 10:40, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
>> I get the impression Schama is quite left wing - in his 'History' he lost his way after the seventeenth century by banging on about the working classes etc (my subject is Soc and Econ Hist so I have no problem there - but it didn't fit in that programme). Could be a pupil of Hobsbawm? I think we were saying roughly the same thing re the other. What I should have said, is that because 'our historians' are less well-known except to us (with perhaps the exception of Pollard) scholarship in this area can be seen by outsiders as lightweight. People of Ross's stature, whether you agreed with him or not, gave it a sort of gravitas. I like you hate these people being wheeled out for everything - the worst being PG commenting on Bosworth Field. At least they let Helen Castor do her own 'She-Wolves' and she did it well but was she 'sexy' enough for more contracts?
>>
>> I thought Schama was good on Shakespeare, though. Cheers Hilary
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: mariewalsh2003 mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:08
>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>
>>
>>
>> I aqree with all you say below, Hilary, but it's not quite the same as saying that "until we have a historian of repute to be our spokesperson we'll always be seen as lightweight". The RIII Soc now has good academic credentials, hard won, amongst those who understand such things. To convince the general public, on the other hand, we need someone with charisma and media access - different thing. A big problem is that TV makes a very few experts into media stars and then starts wheeling them out for subjects beyond their expertise. TV tends to use Tudor specialists, or Simon Schama (who is what, can anyone tell me?), and make them do service for the 15th century as well everything else, so we get Vergil, More and Holinshed's version of the WotR and RIII given to the watching masses as the definitive "expert" last word on the subject.
>> Do I detect signs of Professor Brian Cox also being pulled beyond astrophysics into general science? Don't do it, Brian!
>>
>> By the by, a swede is what southern Brits call the big, round, yellow-fleshed turnips. Lovely earthy flavour. Great winter food. And they're amazingly good curried too.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Marie,
>>> Â
>>> I indeed agree there are some good historians who write for the Society - like you, I won't name them but I think we know all they are and they are very good. (And there are some on this site, like yourself who have no small degree of knowledge).  But you say yourself they don't make good telly.
>>> Â
>>> Trouble is, in our society fortunately or unfortunately, its good, trendy, telly that matters. Mary Beard has suddenly made quoting Latin and Roman erotic habits fashionable. Ditto Brian Cox and Astrophysics. You say it might damage some university careers to come down on the revisionist side, but at Prof level it might actually bring in some funding and give them a bit of media glamour!  It's unfair I know. But I doubt whether many under 40 actually know who Richard was or what he did - and they don't really care. 'The 'murderer' came from the didactic teaching of history given to our parents. So surely, if these younger folk like the Game of Thrones and The Tudors (Because of Jonathan R M) we can find the right trendy person to sell Richard to them and make them want to know more. It's not about scholarship, or even truth, it's about PR, as Starkey has been quick to realise.
>>> Â
>>> But I do admit to a soft spot for Robert Hardy. It was his Prince Hal in the very remote mists of time that also brought me to the fifteenth century, though I was soon let down by the 'real' nasty H5. And the actor who brought me to Richard was, wait for it, the young Oliver Reed, who played him on children's TV in a serial at about the same time. And he was, sigh, a very handsome Richard in those days - and with the right haircut too!   So now I have confessed all and shall retreat to be pilloried. Cheers Hilary (once again great to have you back) .Â
>>> Â
>>> Â Â Â
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: mariewalsh2003
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 18:55
>>> Subject: Re: Dening, the Skeleton and Bosworth
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That aside, I still think our soft underbelly is that we don't have an historian of repute to be our spokesperson. Until we achieve that we'll always be seen as lightweight, seances or anything else apart. Even the Foundation has Robert Hardy. I think we agree on that?
>>>> With many smiles to both of you again Hilary
>>>
>>> Oh, Hilary! The Society has many well respected historians, in the UK at any rate. I won't name names for fear of missing people out and offending. They tend to write scholarly articles, though, rather than popular biographies, so many would not be well known to the general public. The society that produced the Logge Wills as a members' project is surely not lightweight.
>>>
>>> Robert Hardy is a good spokesperson because not only is he very knowledgeable about rhe warbow but he is also a gifted actor. A lot of serious scholars don't make good telly and even if they did they would probably not get the publicity because they are not known to the media.
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't think public perceptions have anything to do with whether we have historians on our side - they have to do with people's idea that they "know" Richard III was bad and killed the Princes and that anyone who says otherwise is obviously a bit of a loony. University historians would be rather wary of being too revisionist, I think, for the same reason.
>>>
>>> Marie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.