PG Facebook Page

Don't go there but 6000 have!

R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial

Celebrate H8's birthday

Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets

And people listen to her ......

Fridge again H

Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.

On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.

But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Don't go there but 6000 have!
>
> R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
>
> Celebrate H8's birthday
>
> Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
>
> And people listen to her ......
>
> Fridge again H
>

That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)



________________________________
From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.

On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.

But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Don't go there but 6000 have!
>
> R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
>
> Celebrate H8's birthday
>
> Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
>
> And people listen to her ......
>
> Fridge again H
>

I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it well in their published works.

I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.

Yours cattily,
Brian

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
>
> On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
>
> But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> >
> > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> >
> > Celebrate H8's birthday
> >
> > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> >
> > And people listen to her ......
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think the problem with Gregory is that she made her name writing Tudor fiction, which has a much wider audience, and all her devotees have followed now she has moved on to WOTR stuff. Tudor scholars don't rate her any more highly than we do.

Specialists in mediaeval fiction don't, as a rule, have the following that she does, sadly.

It maddens me that readers don't see a novel as an interpretation but tend to swallow it whole, as if the author had a hotline to the 15th century.

But, apart from chipping away as people on here and in the Society do, what on earth can we do?

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
>
> On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
>
> But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> >
> > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> >
> > Celebrate H8's birthday
> >
> > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> >
> > And people listen to her ......
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well - perhaps the White Queen on TV won't do her much good. Even her fans don't seem that fond of the rushes. I live in hope   H



________________________________
From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:38
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

I think the problem with Gregory is that she made her name writing Tudor fiction, which has a much wider audience, and all her devotees have followed now she has moved on to WOTR stuff. Tudor scholars don't rate her any more highly than we do.

Specialists in mediaeval fiction don't, as a rule, have the following that she does, sadly.

It maddens me that readers don't see a novel as an interpretation but tend to swallow it whole, as if the author had a hotline to the 15th century.

But, apart from chipping away as people on here and in the Society do, what on earth can we do?

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
>
> On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
>
> But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> >
> > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> >
> > Celebrate H8's birthday
> >
> > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> >
> > And people listen to her ......
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)



________________________________
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it well in their published works.

I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.

Yours cattily,
Brian

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
>
> On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
>
> But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> >
> > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> >
> > Celebrate H8's birthday
> >
> > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> >
> > And people listen to her ......
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

That is so true. They appear to believe they have nothing left to learn. Alison Weir, in particular, always comes across as smug.

Ah, well. Onwards and upwards.



--- In , "Brian" wrote:
>
> I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it well in their published works.
>
> I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
>
> Yours cattily,
> Brian
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: highland_katherine
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> >  
> >
> > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> >
> > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
> >
> > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
> >
> > --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > >
> > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> > >
> > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > >
> > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > >
> > > And people listen to her ......
> > >
> > > Fridge again H
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I do hope that you won't take that piece of advice.

I only once tried to read a PG novel ( a Tudor one ). I managed about 30 pages.

If I was in the habit of throwing books, that one would have hit the wall.

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Brian
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it well in their published works.
>
> I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
>
> Yours cattily,
> Brian
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: highland_katherine
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> >  
> >
> > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> >
> > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
> >
> > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
> >
> > --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > >
> > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> > >
> > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > >
> > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > >
> > > And people listen to her ......
> > >
> > > Fridge again H
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I thought she was supposed to be PRO Richard? and yet she says he was cruel to Anne, had a withered arm and now apparently her latest about E of Y has the "romance" with Richard in it.
 
She's obviously a double agent for the Tudorites.
 
AND  she's a crap writer to boot.  It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people buy her books.

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:24
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page

 
That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)

________________________________
From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.

On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.

But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Don't go there but 6000 have!
>
> R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
>
> Celebrate H8's birthday
>
> Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
>
> And people listen to her ......
>
> Fridge again H
>

Unfortunately I suspect more people will watch it now if they know Richard is in it and they will believe it, just like idiots thought "The Tudors" was history.
 
 

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page

 
Well - perhaps the White Queen on TV won't do her much good. Even her fans don't seem that fond of the rushes. I live in hope   H

________________________________
From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:38
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

I think the problem with Gregory is that she made her name writing Tudor fiction, which has a much wider audience, and all her devotees have followed now she has moved on to WOTR stuff. Tudor scholars don't rate her any more highly than we do.

Specialists in mediaeval fiction don't, as a rule, have the following that she does, sadly.

It maddens me that readers don't see a novel as an interpretation but tend to swallow it whole, as if the author had a hotline to the 15th century.

But, apart from chipping away as people on here and in the Society do, what on earth can we do?

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
>
> On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
>
> But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> >
> > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> >
> > Celebrate H8's birthday
> >
> > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> >
> > And people listen to her ......
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

And they were actually a bit better than what she's churning out now - and I mean churning. I'm not being catty, I admire the Mantels and Dunants, even if at times they can be hard going. They reflect hard work - PG no longer does.
 

________________________________
From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:54
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

I do hope that you won't take that piece of advice.

I only once tried to read a PG novel ( a Tudor one ). I managed about 30 pages.

If I was in the habit of throwing books, that one would have hit the wall.

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Brian
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it well in their published works.
>
> I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
>
> Yours cattily,
> Brian
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: highland_katherine
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> > à
> >
> > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> >
> > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
> >
> > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
> >
> > --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > >
> > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> > >
> > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > >
> > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > >
> > > And people listen to her ......
> > >
> > > Fridge again H
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Changed her spots, Liz. And after being the 'expert' on Bosworth too. Must be lining up to replace Starkey.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:54
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page


 

I thought she was supposed to be PRO Richard? and yet she says he was cruel to Anne, had a withered arm and now apparently her latest about E of Y has the "romance" with Richard in it.
 
She's obviously a double agent for the Tudorites.
 
AND  she's a crap writer to boot.  It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people buy her books.

From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:24
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page

 
That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)

________________________________
From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.

On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.

But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Don't go there but 6000 have!
>
> R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
>
> Celebrate H8's birthday
>
> Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
>
> And people listen to her ......
>
> Fridge again H
>

Hilary said :

s

Liz replied: What, you mean badly?.

peaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)

________________________________

That's the problem - desperately need that film someone 



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:57
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page


 

Unfortunately I suspect more people will watch it now if they know Richard is in it and they will believe it, just like idiots thought "The Tudors" was history.
 
 

From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page

 
Well - perhaps the White Queen on TV won't do her much good. Even her fans don't seem that fond of the rushes. I live in hope   H

________________________________
From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:38
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

I think the problem with Gregory is that she made her name writing Tudor fiction, which has a much wider audience, and all her devotees have followed now she has moved on to WOTR stuff. Tudor scholars don't rate her any more highly than we do.

Specialists in mediaeval fiction don't, as a rule, have the following that she does, sadly.

It maddens me that readers don't see a novel as an interpretation but tend to swallow it whole, as if the author had a hotline to the 15th century.

But, apart from chipping away as people on here and in the Society do, what on earth can we do?

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
>
> On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
>
> But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> >
> > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> >
> > Celebrate H8's birthday
> >
> > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> >
> > And people listen to her ......
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yep - more blood, more incest, more nasties - MIAOUW!!!!



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:59
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page


 



Hilary said :

s

Liz replied: What, you mean badly?.

peaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)

________________________________

I forced my way through Kingmaker's Daughter, as a public service. I enjoyed
it so little that, getting to the end, I was praying that Queen Anne would
just hurry up and die! It's an awful thing when a writer succeeds in making
you dislike a person from history that you quite like. Sandra Worth did the
same with Isobel Ingoldisthorpe (John Nevill's wife).

Karen

From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:54:17 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page






I do hope that you won't take that piece of advice.

I only once tried to read a PG novel ( a Tudor one ). I managed about 30
pages.

If I was in the habit of throwing books, that one would have hit the wall.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who
was told they must write more like PG)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Brian
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
> Â
>
> I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already
found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all
there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it
well in their published works.
>
> I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
>
> Yours cattily,
> Brian
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO
influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial'
camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: highland_katherine
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> >
> > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly
cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The
Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did
point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't
very good fiction, either.
> >
> > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people
believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently
she claims, a historian.
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > >
> > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should
be given decent burial
> > >
> > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > >
> > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > >
> > > And people listen to her ......
> > >
> > > Fridge again H
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Under sufferance, I watched one episode of "The Tudors" with my granddaughter. It was just tripe, and I hated it. Most dramas today focus on the 'sex and gore". Reading history is dry, unless you are a history buff. My opinion, and one more time rambling on.................................

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page



Yep - more blood, more incest, more nasties - MIAOUW!!!!

________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:59
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page





Hilary said :

s

Liz replied: What, you mean badly?.

peaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)

________________________________

I love Sarah Dunant's books.  It seems ages since her last one  - and that is the difference I suppose.  She probably does her own research, like Sharon Penman, instead of paying some GCSE student to do it for her.


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:57
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page

 
And they were actually a bit better than what she's churning out now - and I mean churning. I'm not being catty, I admire the Mantels and Dunants, even if at times they can be hard going. They reflect hard work - PG no longer does.
 

________________________________
From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:54
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

I do hope that you won't take that piece of advice.

I only once tried to read a PG novel ( a Tudor one ). I managed about 30 pages.

If I was in the habit of throwing books, that one would have hit the wall.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Brian
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it well in their published works.
>
> I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
>
> Yours cattily,
> Brian
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: highland_katherine
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> > à
> >
> > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> >
> > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
> >
> > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > >
> > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> > >
> > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > >
> > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > >
> > > And people listen to her ......
> > >
> > > Fridge again H
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

That does take a very "special" talent, doesn't it?

And I do think that it should be borne in mind by agents and publishers that more people don't read PG than do. Not everyone likes their history with a side order of incest for which there is little or no evidence.:-(

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I forced my way through Kingmaker's Daughter, as a public service. I enjoyed
> it so little that, getting to the end, I was praying that Queen Anne would
> just hurry up and die! It's an awful thing when a writer succeeds in making
> you dislike a person from history that you quite like. Sandra Worth did the
> same with Isobel Ingoldisthorpe (John Nevill's wife).
>
> Karen
>
> From: highland_katherine
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:54:17 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I do hope that you won't take that piece of advice.
>
> I only once tried to read a PG novel ( a Tudor one ). I managed about 30
> pages.
>
> If I was in the habit of throwing books, that one would have hit the wall.
>
> --- In
> , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who
> was told they must write more like PG)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Brian
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already
> found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all
> there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it
> well in their published works.
> >
> > I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
> >
> > Yours cattily,
> > Brian
> >
> > --- In
> , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO
> influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial'
> camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: highland_katherine
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> > >
> > > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly
> cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The
> Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did
> point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't
> very good fiction, either.
> > >
> > > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people
> believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently
> she claims, a historian.
> > >
> > > --- In
> , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > > >
> > > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should
> be given decent burial
> > > >
> > > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > > >
> > > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > > >
> > > > And people listen to her ......
> > > >
> > > > Fridge again H
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I tried it too - but I wasn't that valiant.  As you say, whinge, whinge, whinge. I have a feisty Anne in my head  



________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:02
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

I forced my way through Kingmaker's Daughter, as a public service. I enjoyed
it so little that, getting to the end, I was praying that Queen Anne would
just hurry up and die! It's an awful thing when a writer succeeds in making
you dislike a person from history that you quite like. Sandra Worth did the
same with Isobel Ingoldisthorpe (John Nevill's wife).

Karen

From: highland_katherine katherine.michaud@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:54:17 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

I do hope that you won't take that piece of advice.

I only once tried to read a PG novel ( a Tudor one ). I managed about 30
pages.

If I was in the habit of throwing books, that one would have hit the wall.

--- In
, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who
was told they must write more like PG)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Brian
> To:

> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
> Â
>
> I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already
found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all
there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it
well in their published works.
>
> I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
>
> Yours cattily,
> Brian
>
> --- In
, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO
influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial'
camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: highland_katherine
> > To:

> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> >
> > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly
cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The
Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did
point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't
very good fiction, either.
> >
> > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people
believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently
she claims, a historian.
> >
> > --- In
, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > >
> > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should
be given decent burial
> > >
> > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > >
> > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > >
> > > And people listen to her ......
> > >
> > > Fridge again H
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

She does actually. I went to a talk of hers. She spent 10 years in Italy researching for the 3 books on that period - she could analyse paintings for furnitures, costumes and characters and she was very good on the lives of the nuns. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who puts that amount of work into it - without the promise of an end reward



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:24
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page


 

I love Sarah Dunant's books.  It seems ages since her last one  - and that is the difference I suppose.  She probably does her own research, like Sharon Penman, instead of paying some GCSE student to do it for her.

From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:57
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page

 
And they were actually a bit better than what she's churning out now - and I mean churning. I'm not being catty, I admire the Mantels and Dunants, even if at times they can be hard going. They reflect hard work - PG no longer does.
 

________________________________
From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:54
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

I do hope that you won't take that piece of advice.

I only once tried to read a PG novel ( a Tudor one ). I managed about 30 pages.

If I was in the habit of throwing books, that one would have hit the wall.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Brian
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it well in their published works.
>
> I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
>
> Yours cattily,
> Brian
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: highland_katherine
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> > à
> >
> > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> >
> > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
> >
> > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > >
> > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> > >
> > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > >
> > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > >
> > > And people listen to her ......
> > >
> > > Fridge again H
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.

This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.

I haven't read any Sarah Dunant, I must seek some out. I do like a well researched novel.







--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I love Sarah Dunant's books.  It seems ages since her last one  - and that is the difference I suppose.  She probably does her own research, like Sharon Penman, instead of paying some GCSE student to do it for her.
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:57
> Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
> And they were actually a bit better than what she's churning out now - and I mean churning. I'm not being catty, I admire the Mantels and Dunants, even if at times they can be hard going. They reflect hard work - PG no longer does.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:54
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> I do hope that you won't take that piece of advice.
>
> I only once tried to read a PG novel ( a Tudor one ). I managed about 30 pages.
>
> If I was in the habit of throwing books, that one would have hit the wall.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Brian
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> >  
> >
> > I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it well in their published works.
> >
> > I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
> >
> > Yours cattily,
> > Brian
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: highland_katherine
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> > >
> > > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
> > >
> > > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > > >
> > > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> > > >
> > > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > > >
> > > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > > >
> > > > And people listen to her ......
> > > >
> > > > Fridge again H
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Budge up Hilary...is there room for another one?

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
>
> Fridge again H
>

Chat up Michael Wood .... (and how can that woman say that saying what she now does on her Facebook page)



________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:38
Subject: Reputations

 

The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.

This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.

Yes, they are very good and much deaper than PG



________________________________
From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

I haven't read any Sarah Dunant, I must seek some out. I do like a well researched novel.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I love Sarah Dunant's books.  It seems ages since her last one  - and that is the difference I suppose.  She probably does her own research, like Sharon Penman, instead of paying some GCSE student to do it for her.
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:57
> Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
> And they were actually a bit better than what she's churning out now - and I mean churning. I'm not being catty, I admire the Mantels and Dunants, even if at times they can be hard going. They reflect hard work - PG no longer does.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:54
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>  
>
> I do hope that you won't take that piece of advice.
>
> I only once tried to read a PG novel ( a Tudor one ). I managed about 30 pages.
>
> If I was in the habit of throwing books, that one would have hit the wall.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Nice to hear from you Brian. Yes please do - we need you. (speaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Brian
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:30
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> > à
> >
> > I wouldn't dare go near PG, as I might lose it altogether. I have already found Alison Weir in another locus, both ladies appear to think they know all there is to know on the matter. All I will say is that if they do, they hide it well in their published works.
> >
> > I am trusting in the Lord, and keeping my powder dry.
> >
> > Yours cattily,
> > Brian
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: highland_katherine
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> > >
> > > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
> > >
> > > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > > >
> > > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> > > >
> > > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > > >
> > > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > > >
> > > > And people listen to her ......
> > > >
> > > > Fridge again H
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Her books should not be tossed aside lightly. They should be hurled with great force.

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page





Hilary said :

s

Liz replied: What, you mean badly?.

peaking as one who was told they must write more like PG)

________________________________

I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".

It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.


--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
>
>

See you had a bad day.  Things can only get better - I think!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:41
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page


 

Budge up Hilary...is there room for another one?

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
>
> Fridge again H
>

I'd love to chat up Michael Wood (and have thought that since about 1974 or so!).  Unfortunately I don't think his wife would approve.
 
Seriously, why can't someone approach his agent?
 
We definitely need a bloke I think - and a charismatic one -  as the public face.  I don't want to sound  disparaging, I think Philippa has done an absolutely  brilliant job but people are focussing one the "in love with Richard" rubbish and the press love the idea of a bunch of weirdos.  We need someone intelligent, charismatic but a bit more mainstream.  Dan Snow might be a good second choice. 

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:42
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
Chat up Michael Wood .... (and how can that woman say that saying what she now does on her Facebook page)

________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:38
Subject: Reputations

 

The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.

This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.

That's why we need Michael Wood.
 
Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.

From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".

It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
>
>



Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
Recent Activity: * New Members 23
Visit Your Group

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

The very mention of the names Weir and Gregory make me feel quite green around the gills...What are the chances of them retiring and fading out of sight...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> See you had a bad day.  Things can only get better - I think!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:41
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
>  
>
> Budge up Hilary...is there room for another one?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

A lucratice contract on St Helena



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:59
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page


 

The very mention of the names Weir and Gregory make me feel quite green around the gills...What are the chances of them retiring and fading out of sight...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> See you had a bad day.  Things can only get better - I think!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:41
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
>  
>
> Budge up Hilary...is there room for another one?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations


 

That's why we need Michael Wood.
 
Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.

From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".

It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
>
>

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
Recent Activity: * New Members 23
Visit Your Group

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

highland_katherine wrote:

//snip//
"It maddens me that readers don't see a novel as an interpretation but tend
to swallow it whole, as if the author had a hotline to the 15th century."

Unfortunately there are 'way too many people who assume that anything
printed MUST be true and it's spread to the internet. Right now there's a TV
commercial for car insurance poking fun at the latter idea:
She: "I thought they didn't have that app?"
He: "Where'd you hear that?"
She "On the internet, and they can't put anything on there that isn't true."
He: "Where'd you you hear THAT?"
Together: "On the internet!"
In the case of PG, just substitute "books" for internet...
Doug

But, apart from chipping away as people on here and in the Society do, what
on earth can we do?

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO
> influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the
> 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
> Â
>
> Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
>
> On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly
> cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd
> read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a
> few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further
> adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
>
> But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if
> people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is,
> as apparently she claims, a historian.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> >
> > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but
> > should be given decent burial
> >
> > Celebrate H8's birthday
> >
> > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> >
> > And people listen to her ......
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hahahaha! And the fans find the Kingmakers Daughter so "accurate".




________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:49 AM
Subject: PG Facebook Page


 
Don't go there but 6000 have!

R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial

Celebrate H8's birthday

Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets

And people listen to her ......

Fridge again H

Michael Wood would be an excellent choice.

He certainly did it for me when I was teenager. All that striding about talking about Eric Bloodaxe.;-)

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> That's why we need Michael Wood.
>  
> Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
>
> From: highland_katherine
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>  
> I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
>
> It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> >
> > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
>
>
>
>

I know most of you hate facebook but please do leave comments on this page. I was rude enough to point out people should read Sunne and not Kingmaker's Daughter. I am sure this time she will block me.......




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page


 
That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)

________________________________
From: highland_katherine katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.

On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.

But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Don't go there but 6000 have!
>
> R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
>
> Celebrate H8's birthday
>
> Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
>
> And people listen to her ......
>
> Fridge again H
>

A nice house with a view somewhere...Mount Etna maybe.......Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> A lucratice contract on St Helena
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:59
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
>  
>
> The very mention of the names Weir and Gregory make me feel quite green around the gills...What are the chances of them retiring and fading out of sight...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > See you had a bad day.  Things can only get better - I think!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:41
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Budge up Hilary...is there room for another one?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Fridge again H
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's so dispiriting. My granny, who left school at 12, was in awe of the printed word and used to believe everything she read "in the paper". The trouble was "the paper" was The Sun.

You would have thought that we would have got more discriminating as we got more educated. < Despairs>



--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately there are 'way too many people who assume that anything
> printed MUST be true and it's spread to the internet. Right now there's a TV
> commercial for car insurance poking fun at the latter idea:
> She: "I thought they didn't have that app?"
> He: "Where'd you hear that?"
> She "On the internet, and they can't put anything on there that isn't true."
> He: "Where'd you you hear THAT?"
> Together: "On the internet!"
> In the case of PG, just substitute "books" for internet...
> Doug
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

To Everyone here 



Now, now, it's easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippa's position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richard's memory? (I for one know that I haven't done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it weren't for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)



Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes he's a great commentator; I've really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites  there was an anti-Richard type and then Wood  and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, So what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days. Now, frankly, I don't think that's the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.



It really bothers me to have people here deride women of a certain age blah, blah, blah  I'm 63, and I can't do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the woman part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? It's better to say there's room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and lovers of Richard as well as more detached types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richard's innate goodness? Yur durn tootin' it does (at least for me). But  no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately one's opinions come down to a matter of belief. It's just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.



It's not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society  I don't think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; it's just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think it's important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.



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 Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations





We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.


________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations




That's why we need Michael Wood.

Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.

From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Reputations


I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".

It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
>
>

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
Recent Activity: * New Members 23
Visit Your Group

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

Well said Johanne. I think all of us should be able to post what we wish, within the confines of appropriate good sense and good taste.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:09 PM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:



To Everyone here ý

Now, now, itýs easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippaýs position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richardýs memory? (I for one know that I havenýt done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it werenýt for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)

Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes heýs a great commentator; Iýve really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites ý there was an ýanti-Richardý type and then Wood ý and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, ýSo what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days.ý Now, frankly, I donýt think thatýs the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.

It really bothers me to have people here deride ýwomen of a certain ageý blah, blah, blah ý Iým 63, and I canýt do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the ýwomaný part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? Itýs better to say thereýs room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and ýloversý of Richard as well as more ýdetachedý types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richardýs innate goodness? Yur durn tootiný it does (at least for me). But ý no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately oneýs opinions come down to a matter of belief. Itýs just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.

Itýs not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society ý I donýt think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; itýs just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think itýs important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

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

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

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.

________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> >
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

That's why we need Michael Wood.

Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.

From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Reputations

I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".

It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
>
>

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
Recent Activity: * New Members 23
Visit Your Group

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

Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as if she was the skeleton's widow and, although I haven't read the article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No wonder people see us as 'mutters' and 'weirdos'.
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>
>  
>
> That's why we need Michael Wood.
>  
> Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
>
> From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>  
> I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
>
> It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> >
> > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"highland_katherine" wrote:
>
>[snip]
> But, apart from chipping away as people on here and in the Society do, what on earth can we do [about people who take Philippa Gregory's works as historically accurate]?

Carol responds:

Review her books on Amazon.com and expose them for what they are? I'd do it, but I can't bring myself to read her books.

Carol

Johanne: So well said - as always. Let's leave Phillipa alone - she did something no one else has been able to do in 500 years! Not a bad accomplishment.

Although, I must say I laughed at Michael Wood's comment. Sometimes those little rascals in the Tower get on my nerves, too. Maire.

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Well said Johanne. I think all of us should be able to post what we wish, within the confines of appropriate good sense and good taste.
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:09 PM, "Johanne Tournier" > wrote:
>
>
>
> To Everyone here –
>
> Now, now, it's easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippa's position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richard's memory? (I for one know that I haven't done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it weren't for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)
>
> Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes he's a great commentator; I've really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites – there was an "anti-Richard" type and then Wood – and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, "So what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days." Now, frankly, I don't think that's the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.
>
> It really bothers me to have people here deride "women of a certain age" blah, blah, blah – I'm 63, and I can't do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the "woman" part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? It's better to say there's room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and "lovers" of Richard as well as more "detached" types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richard's innate goodness? Yur durn tootin' it does (at least for me). But – no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately one's opinions come down to a matter of belief. It's just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.
>
> It's not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society – I don't think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; it's just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think it's important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.
>
> 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 Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
> We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> To: " " >
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
> That's why we need Michael Wood.
>
> Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
>
> From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
> I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
>
> It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> >
> > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh come on...your completely overegging the pudding now...Eileen

--- In , "patfallon13" wrote:
>
>
> Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as if she was the skeleton's widow and, although I haven't read the article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No wonder people see us as 'mutters' and 'weirdos'.
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > That's why we need Michael Wood.
> >  
> > Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
> >
> > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> > Subject: Re: Reputations
> >
> >  
> > I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
> >
> > It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> > >
> > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> > Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> > Visit Your Group
> >
> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I am in two minds over this. Yes, I do think Philippa's reaction on screen, and now this interview, has done the cause no favours. But it takes a romantic faith like hers, allied to the sound scholarship of others in the Society, to move the necessary mountains. The sensible academic types amongst us were far from convinced the thing would get anywhere - and she wanted a lot of money.
So Philippa was a very necessary catalyst, and she's worked really hard to make this happen, and we can/t thank her enough.
It's just a shame the media, or at least that section of it that want to take the mickey and go back to their evil hunchback and poor little princes, are concentrating on Philippa's romanticism as shorthand for Ricardians in general and the Richard III Society in particular. I just hope she starts to realise she's being used and takes a bit more care.
Marie




--- In , "patfallon13" wrote:
>
>
> Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as if she was the skeleton's widow and, although I haven't read the article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No wonder people see us as 'mutters' and 'weirdos'.
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > That's why we need Michael Wood.
> >  
> > Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
> >
> > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> > Subject: Re: Reputations
> >
> >  
> > I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
> >
> > It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> > >
> > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> > Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> > Visit Your Group
> >
> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

You know... what a sad day on here when someone like Philippa, who has led the search for Richard from the front, banged on doors and all it entailed to get the tv company to get interested, raised money, then, OMG, shows a bit of human passion and then gets mullered on here. I hope Phillipa does not read the messages on here because I feel totally embarrassed by it. Its quite shameful and undeserved...Even if one felt a tad on those lines would it not be better to keep one's thoughts to oneself seeing that at the end of the day Richard was found which is a minor miracle in itself. Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Oh come on...your completely overegging the pudding now...Eileen
>
> --- In , "patfallon13" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as if she was the skeleton's widow and, although I haven't read the article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No wonder people see us as 'mutters' and 'weirdos'.
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams
> > > To: ""
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > That's why we need Michael Wood.
> > >  
> > > Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
> > >
> > > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> > > Subject: Re: Reputations
> > >
> > >  
> > > I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
> > >
> > > It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> > > >
> > > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> > > Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> > > Visit Your Group
> > >
> > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

The thing is, Carol, the PG fans just flood the review page until anything remotely critical is drowned out. Same goes for anything on Facebook.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Review her books on Amazon.com and expose them for what they are? I'd do it, but I can't bring myself to read her books.
>
> Carol
>

Well said Johanne!
Vickie

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Reputations

 
To Everyone here 

Now, now, it's easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippa's position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richard's memory? (I for one know that I haven't done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it weren't for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)

Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes he's a great commentator; I've really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites  there was an anti-Richard type and then Wood  and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, So what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days. Now, frankly, I don't think that's the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.

It really bothers me to have people here deride women of a certain age blah, blah, blah  I'm 63, and I can't do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the woman part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? It's better to say there's room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and lovers of Richard as well as more detached types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richard's innate goodness? Yur durn tootin' it does (at least for me). But  no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately one's opinions come down to a matter of belief. It's just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.

It's not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society  I don't think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; it's just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think it's important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.

________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com >
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com " mailto:%40yahoogroups.com >
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

That's why we need Michael Wood.

Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.

From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Reputations

I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".

It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
>
>

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
Recent Activity: * New Members 23
Visit Your Group

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

She'll probably delete your post although I don't think she actually reads anything because she never answers any of the questions, even the ones from real fans.



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:21
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page

 
I know most of you hate facebook but please do leave comments on this page. I was rude enough to point out people should read Sunne and not Kingmaker's Daughter. I am sure this time she will block me.......

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page


 
That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)

________________________________
From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page

 

Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.

On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.

But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Don't go there but 6000 have!
>
> R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
>
> Celebrate H8's birthday
>
> Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
>
> And people listen to her ......
>
> Fridge again H
>

"Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she
has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is
portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people
will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for
me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as
if she was the skeleton' s widow and, although I haven't read the
article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No
wonder people see us as 'mutters&# 39; and 'weirdos&# 39;."

Harsh - but, yes, I agree.

Johanne and Eileen and all the rest,
 
As I said a bit earlier I do think Philippa was almost set up to look at times as she did. It's supposedly what makes 'good' television. I feel for her. She's not a professional and who knows what say she had in the editing. We owe her a debt for all sorts of reasons, and one of those is for setting yourself up to go on telly when the outcome isn't at all certain. Farnaby was OK but not someone experienced at protecting a quite vulnerable person.
 
I'm as fed up with the women of a certain age thing as I'm sure all the rest of us are. Like most of us of around that age a lot of time was spent by us forging pathways previously trodden by men, it was part of the (admirable) post-war idealism about peace and equality and to concede we need a man on this occasion is no easy thing. Perhaps we should say instead that we need a historian with a good pedigree, male or female, to put our case - someone with a good track record elsewhere. But it's difficult. Helen Castor, young and well qualified, did her excellent series on the She-Wolves but was sneered at by some for being 'too feminist'. And we know Starkey hates female historians - not that that says a lot.
 
The Michael Wood type of  comment about the princes is becoming more prevalent and perhaps we should welcome it. At least it's getting away from sentimentalism and enables some of them to sit more comfortably on the fence - they could even jump off it one day. But I agree with Johanne that it should be someone who knows and loves the fifteenth century as well as having so-called academic credentials. They're going to be hard to find. Perhaps we shouldn't have let the Foundation grab Robert Hardy?
 
Sorry, that's just my twopenneth. PS What we mustn't let the issue do is damage our own solidarity      By the way, do we know why Annette pulled out?    Cheers 
 
   
________________________________

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:07
Subject: RE: Re: Reputations

 

To Everyone here 

Now, now, it's easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippa's position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richard's memory? (I for one know that I haven't done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it weren't for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)

Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes he's a great commentator; I've really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites  there was an anti-Richard type and then Wood  and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, So what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days. Now, frankly, I don't think that's the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.

It really bothers me to have people here deride women of a certain age blah, blah, blah  I'm 63, and I can't do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the woman part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? It's better to say there's room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and lovers of Richard as well as more detached types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richard's innate goodness? Yur durn tootin' it does (at least for me). But  no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately one's opinions come down to a matter of belief. It's just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.

It's not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society  I don't think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; it's just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think it's important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.

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 Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.

________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
To: " " >
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

That's why we need Michael Wood.

Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.

From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Reputations

I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".

It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
>
>

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
Recent Activity: * New Members 23
Visit Your Group

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

I think what Philippa did is amazing and  before Philippa even joined the Society,  we were all seen as women of a certain age, blah blah blah and the footage used in the C4 documentary has reinforced that opinion.  It's not Philippa's fault.
 
 I first became interested as a 14 or 15 year old and of course there are plenty of younger people involved - and even men too!  However I think we do need a male spokesman to get away from this image and a recognised historian too.
 
As for Michael Wood, he's right of course.  The problem is they were "children" you see and therefore totally innocent and perfectly behaved (yes I am being sarcastic).


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:54
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
Johanne: So well said - as always. Let's leave Phillipa alone - she did something no one else has been able to do in 500 years! Not a bad accomplishment.

Although, I must say I laughed at Michael Wood's comment. Sometimes those little rascals in the Tower get on my nerves, too. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Well said Johanne. I think all of us should be able to post what we wish, within the confines of appropriate good sense and good taste.
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:09 PM, "Johanne Tournier" > wrote:
>
>
>
> To Everyone here 
>
> Now, now, it's easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippa's position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richard's memory? (I for one know that I haven't done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it weren't for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)
>
> Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes he's a great commentator; I've really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites  there was an "anti-Richard" type and then Wood  and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, "So what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days." Now, frankly, I don't think that's the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.
>
> It really bothers me to have people here deride "women of a certain age" blah, blah, blah  I'm 63, and I can't do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the "woman" part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? It's better to say there's room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and "lovers" of Richard as well as more "detached" types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richard's innate goodness? Yur durn tootin' it does (at least for me). But  no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately one's opinions come down to a matter of belief. It's just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.
>
> It's not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society  I don't think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; it's just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think it's important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
> We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com " mailto:%40yahoogroups.com >
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
> That's why we need Michael Wood.
>
> Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
>
> From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
> I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
>
> It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> >
> > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maybe this programme could be viewed as the tip of the iceberg and other programmes follow that will make everybody happy..Eileen

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I think what Philippa did is amazing and  before Philippa even joined the Society,  we were all seen as women of a certain age, blah blah blah and the footage used in the C4 documentary has reinforced that opinion.  It's not Philippa's fault.
>  
>  I first became interested as a 14 or 15 year old and of course there are plenty of younger people involved - and even men too!  However I think we do need a male spokesman to get away from this image and a recognised historian too.
>  
> As for Michael Wood, he's right of course.  The problem is they were "children" you see and therefore totally innocent and perfectly behaved (yes I am being sarcastic).
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:54
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>  
> Johanne: So well said - as always. Let's leave Phillipa alone - she did something no one else has been able to do in 500 years! Not a bad accomplishment.
>
> Although, I must say I laughed at Michael Wood's comment. Sometimes those little rascals in the Tower get on my nerves, too. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Well said Johanne. I think all of us should be able to post what we wish, within the confines of appropriate good sense and good taste.
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:09 PM, "Johanne Tournier" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > To Everyone here â€"
> >
> > Now, now, it's easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippa's position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richard's memory? (I for one know that I haven't done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it weren't for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)
> >
> > Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes he's a great commentator; I've really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites â€" there was an "anti-Richard" type and then Wood â€" and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, "So what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days." Now, frankly, I don't think that's the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.
> >
> > It really bothers me to have people here deride "women of a certain age" blah, blah, blah â€" I'm 63, and I can't do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the "woman" part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? It's better to say there's room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and "lovers" of Richard as well as more "detached" types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richard's innate goodness? Yur durn tootin' it does (at least for me). But â€" no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately one's opinions come down to a matter of belief. It's just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.
> >
> > It's not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society â€" I don't think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; it's just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think it's important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> >
> > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@ >
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com " mailto:%40yahoogroups.com >
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> >
> > That's why we need Michael Wood.
> >
> > Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
> >
> > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com >
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> > Subject: Re: Reputations
> >
> > I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
> >
> > It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> > >
> > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> > Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> > Visit Your Group
> >
> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen, unfortunately there are people out there (ordinary people, shall we say) who feel the same.  One of my closest friends said to me "that silly woman got on my nerves" and my friend is not a nasty person, she's actually one of the kindest people I know, she just isn't interested in the period and doesn't know what Philippa has done regarding fund raising etc and therefore how important this all was to her. 
 
It isn't fair but apparently quite a few people out there feel the same way.  Personally I think the programme should have been edited differently but no doubt C 4 thought it would be "good tv".  Editing is everything in a film or tv programme and frankly they are only concerned with "good tv" they don't care about Richard and they certainly don't care about Philippa. 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:56
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
Oh come on...your completely overegging the pudding now...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "patfallon13" wrote:
>
>
> Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as if she was the skeleton's widow and, although I haven't read the article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No wonder people see us as 'mutters' and 'weirdos'.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > That's why we need Michael Wood.
> >  
> > Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
> >
> > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> > Subject: Re: Reputations
> >
> >  
> > I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
> >
> > It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> > >
> > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> > Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> > Visit Your Group
> >
> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ⬢ Unsubscribe ⬢ Terms of Use ⬢ Send us Feedback
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.

Carol responds:

I'm waiting for HRH the Duke of Gloucester to speak up. Wonder why he hasn't--or did I just miss it?

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.

Carol responds:

Sorry to reveal my ignorance on this point, but who on earth is Michael Wood and what is his connection with Richard? Is he any more knowledgeable than Simon ("I am a Ricardian") Farnaby?

BTW, I hope that "Horrible Histories" doesn't update the Richard III song ("Never had a hump and my arm was all right" changed to "had a crooked back but my arm was all right").

Carol

It's true, I'm afraid. I've read similar comments in various places on the net.

I understood why Philippa reacted the way she did. I surprised myself with how emotional I felt just watching, to be honest. And I don't think that, if I'd been in her situation, I would have been able to hold it together at all.

I'm sure with different editing Philippa could have come across very differently. Liz is right, people in television only want what they consider to be a good programme and everything else can go to hell in a handcart, frankly. It is sickening, but there it is.

The fact remains that for people watching they saw a lot of emotion and not much science and I know a lot of people watched the programme because they wanted to see the scientific process that led to the identification .

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Eileen, unfortunately there are people out there (ordinary people, shall we say) who feel the same.  One of my closest friends said to me "that silly woman got on my nerves" and my friend is not a nasty person, she's actually one of the kindest people I know, she just isn't interested in the period and doesn't know what Philippa has done regarding fund raising etc and therefore how important this all was to her. 
>  
> It isn't fair but apparently quite a few people out there feel the same way.  Personally I think the programme should have been edited differently but no doubt C 4 thought it would be "good tv".  Editing is everything in a film or tv programme and frankly they are only concerned with "good tv" they don't care about Richard and they certainly don't care about Philippa. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:56
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>  
> Oh come on...your completely overegging the pudding now...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "patfallon13" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as if she was the skeleton's widow and, although I haven't read the article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No wonder people see us as 'mutters' and 'weirdos'.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > That's why we need Michael Wood.
> > >  
> > > Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
> > >
> > > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> > > Subject: Re: Reputations
> > >
> > >  
> > > I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
> > >
> > > It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> > > >
> > > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> > > Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> > > Visit Your Group
> > >
> > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Liz and Katherine..you have both made very goods points. It may well be that I am in the minority but there you go. We're all different. It has all made me feel a tad deflated to tell you the truth. Anyway...I have had my say and shall leave it at that. Let's move on and talk about something else....:0) Eileen

--- In , "highland_katherine" wrote:
>
> It's true, I'm afraid. I've read similar comments in various places on the net.
>
> I understood why Philippa reacted the way she did. I surprised myself with how emotional I felt just watching, to be honest. And I don't think that, if I'd been in her situation, I would have been able to hold it together at all.
>
> I'm sure with different editing Philippa could have come across very differently. Liz is right, people in television only want what they consider to be a good programme and everything else can go to hell in a handcart, frankly. It is sickening, but there it is.
>
> The fact remains that for people watching they saw a lot of emotion and not much science and I know a lot of people watched the programme because they wanted to see the scientific process that led to the identification .
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, unfortunately there are people out there (ordinary people, shall we say) who feel the same.  One of my closest friends said to me "that silly woman got on my nerves" and my friend is not a nasty person, she's actually one of the kindest people I know, she just isn't interested in the period and doesn't know what Philippa has done regarding fund raising etc and therefore how important this all was to her. 
> >  
> > It isn't fair but apparently quite a few people out there feel the same way.  Personally I think the programme should have been edited differently but no doubt C 4 thought it would be "good tv".  Editing is everything in a film or tv programme and frankly they are only concerned with "good tv" they don't care about Richard and they certainly don't care about Philippa. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:56
> > Subject: Re: Reputations
> >
> >  
> > Oh come on...your completely overegging the pudding now...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "patfallon13" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as if she was the skeleton's widow and, although I haven't read the article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No wonder people see us as 'mutters' and 'weirdos'.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > > > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > That's why we need Michael Wood.
> > > >  
> > > > Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
> > > >
> > > > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Reputations
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
> > > >
> > > > It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> > > > Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> > > > Visit Your Group
> > > >
> > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I totally agree about the "women of a certain age" thing. When I first got into Richard III I was young, and so were a lot of other Ricardians. We were then silly young things in love with a dead king. Now we're women of a certain age doing the women-of-a-certain-age version. In a nutshell, it's mysogyny.

I know from having ME how difficult it is to get a valid point across to the media if the establishment big guns, popular prejudice and mysogyny are ranged on the other side. The biological abnormalities associated with the illness are well proven; it has been classified by the World Health Organisation as a neurological illness since the 1960s, many individuals like myself got ill from vaccination: BUT in several countries, most notably Britain, it got taken over by old-fashioned Freudian psychiatrists - funded by pharma and chemical companies and health insurance companies who were either afraid they had caused it or didn't want to pay out on the insurance - who claimed it was all in the mind, we were just depressed or stressed or something moveable goalposts) but too proud to admit to mental illness; and what is one of their prime reasons for believing it to be "hystrerical": it's because it's commoner in women than in men! By that token gall stones and autoimmune diseases must also be of hysterical origin.

All government money for this illness goes to psychiatry and forced exercise regimes and for many years people with the condition in the UK were denied sickness benefits until the government was made aware of their obligation to abide by WHO illness classification.
You can't get the message across to the media. The science is boring. We object to the incorrect mental health label, which denies us appropriate tests and treatment, and it is all over the press that we are prejudiced against the mentally ill. We criticise the work of these psychiatrists (whose use of logic is wobblier than Alison Weir's) and they say we are victimising them. Every so often one or other of them turns up in the papers claiming to have received death threats from "ME activists", but they've never given any details. The same group are behind the denial of Gulf War Illness, and the man behind it all has - what, been sacked? given early retirement? I hear you ask. No, he's just been given a knighthood. I won't name him for fear he'll start squealing about victimisation again and saying - as he is prone too - that he needs to go back to Afghanistan where he feels safer.

This may sound terribly OT, but my point is that ANYTHING can be turned against you, and will be if the media so desire. Any decent person with a truth to tell can be ridiculed, and any lying plonker turned into hero. So we need to be really careful.

Marie






--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Johanne and Eileen and all the rest,
>  
> As I said a bit earlier I do think Philippa was almost set up to look at times as she did. It's supposedly what makes 'good' television. I feel for her. She's not a professional and who knows what say she had in the editing. We owe her a debt for all sorts of reasons, and one of those is for setting yourself up to go on telly when the outcome isn't at all certain. Farnaby was OK but not someone experienced at protecting a quite vulnerable person.
>  
> I'm as fed up with the women of a certain age thing as I'm sure all the rest of us are. Like most of us of around that age a lot of time was spent by us forging pathways previously trodden by men, it was part of the (admirable) post-war idealism about peace and equality and to concede we need a man on this occasion is no easy thing. Perhaps we should say instead that we need a historian with a good pedigree, male or female, to put our case - someone with a good track record elsewhere. But it's difficult. Helen Castor, young and well qualified, did her excellent series on the She-Wolves but was sneered at by some for being 'too feminist'. And we know Starkey hates female historians - not that that says a lot.
>  
> The Michael Wood type of  comment about the princes is becoming more prevalent and perhaps we should welcome it. At least it's getting away from sentimentalism and enables some of them to sit more comfortably on the fence - they could even jump off it one day. But I agree with Johanne that it should be someone who knows and loves the fifteenth century as well as having so-called academic credentials. They're going to be hard to find. Perhaps we shouldn't have let the Foundation grab Robert Hardy?
>  
> Sorry, that's just my twopenneth. PS What we mustn't let the issue do is damage our own solidarity      By the way, do we know why Annette pulled out?    Cheers 
>  
>    
> ________________________________
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:07
> Subject: RE: Re: Reputations
>
>  
>
> To Everyone here â€"
>
> Now, now, it’s easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippa’s position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richard’s memory? (I for one know that I haven’t done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it weren’t for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)
>
> Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes he’s a great commentator; I’ve really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites â€" there was an “anti-Richard” type and then Wood â€" and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, “So what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days.” Now, frankly, I don’t think that’s the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.
>
> It really bothers me to have people here deride “women of a certain age” blah, blah, blah â€" I’m 63, and I can’t do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the “woman” part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? It’s better to say there’s room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and “lovers” of Richard as well as more “detached” types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richard’s innate goodness? Yur durn tootin’ it does (at least for me). But â€" no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately one’s opinions come down to a matter of belief. It’s just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.
>
> It’s not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society â€" I don’t think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; it’s just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think it’s important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.
>
> 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 Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
> We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
> To: " " >
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
> That's why we need Michael Wood.
>
> Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
>
> From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
> I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
>
> It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> >
> > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work.  He is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since the mid 70s.    He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.

Carol responds:

Sorry to reveal my ignorance on this point, but who on earth is Michael Wood and what is his connection with Richard? Is he any more knowledgeable than Simon ("I am a Ricardian") Farnaby?

BTW, I hope that "Horrible Histories" doesn't update the Richard III song ("Never had a hump and my arm was all right" changed to "had a crooked back but my arm was all right").

Carol

Well, I did get back to stir the water a bit. I am waiting for an avalanche of hate massage:/ Ah well!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:41 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> She'll probably delete your post although I don't think she actually reads anything because she never answers any of the questions, even the ones from real fans.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:21
> Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
> I know most of you hate facebook but please do leave comments on this page. I was rude enough to point out people should read Sunne and not Kingmaker's Daughter. I am sure this time she will block me.......
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
> That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
>
> Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
>
> On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
>
> But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> >
> > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> >
> > Celebrate H8's birthday
> >
> > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> >
> > And people listen to her ......
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

While giving Phillipa all the credit due to her for fund raising, selling the idea etc, let's not forget John A-H who did an amazing piece of research on the mtDNA and the map-regression, and came over as professional in the programme.

I put a comment onthe Hrny Vth birthday bit - "I don't care - he was vile".  Not sure if that will stay!

 
 
Is she hedging her bets or is she a Tudor spy?  I might ask.

________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:25
Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page

 
Well, I did get back to stir the water a bit. I am waiting for an avalanche of hate massage:/ Ah well!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:41 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:

> She'll probably delete your post although I don't think she actually reads anything because she never answers any of the questions, even the ones from real fans.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:21
> Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
> I know most of you hate facebook but please do leave comments on this page. I was rude enough to point out people should read Sunne and not Kingmaker's Daughter. I am sure this time she will block me.......
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
> That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
>
> ________________________________
> From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
>
> Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
>
> On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
>
> But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> >
> > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> >
> > Celebrate H8's birthday
> >
> > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> >
> > And people listen to her ......
> >
> > Fridge again H
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maybe all the hue and cry about the princes, will force QE II to open the urn, or box....

On Feb 6, 2013, at 1:56 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Johanne and Eileen and all the rest,

As I said a bit earlier I do think Philippa was almost set up to look at times as she did. It's supposedly what makes 'good' television. I feel for her. She's not a professional and who knows what say she had in the editing. We owe her a debt for all sorts of reasons, and one of those is for setting yourself up to go on telly when the outcome isn't at all certain. Farnaby was OK but not someone experienced at protecting a quite vulnerable person.

I'm as fed up with the women of a certain age thing as I'm sure all the rest of us are. Like most of us of around that age a lot of time was spent by us forging pathways previously trodden by men, it was part of the (admirable) post-war idealism about peace and equality and to concede we need a man on this occasion is no easy thing. Perhaps we should say instead that we need a historian with a good pedigree, male or female, to put our case - someone with a good track record elsewhere. But it's difficult. Helen Castor, young and well qualified, did her excellent series on the She-Wolves but was sneered at by some for being 'too feminist'. And we know Starkey hates female historians - not that that says a lot.

The Michael Wood type of comment about the princes is becoming more prevalent and perhaps we should welcome it. At least it's getting away from sentimentalism and enables some of them to sit more comfortably on the fence - they could even jump off it one day. But I agree with Johanne that it should be someone who knows and loves the fifteenth century as well as having so-called academic credentials. They're going to be hard to find. Perhaps we shouldn't have let the Foundation grab Robert Hardy?

Sorry, that's just my twopenneth. PS What we mustn't let the issue do is damage our own solidarity By the way, do we know why Annette pulled out? Cheers


________________________________

From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:07
Subject: RE: Re: Reputations



To Everyone here ý

Now, now, itýs easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippaýs position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richardýs memory? (I for one know that I havenýt done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it werenýt for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)

Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes heýs a great commentator; Iýve really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites ý there was an ýanti-Richardý type and then Wood ý and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, ýSo what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days.ý Now, frankly, I donýt think thatýs the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.

It really bothers me to have people here deride ýwomen of a certain ageý blah, blah, blah ý Iým 63, and I canýt do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the ýwomaný part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? Itýs better to say thereýs room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and ýloversý of Richard as well as more ýdetachedý types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richardýs innate goodness? Yur durn tootiný it does (at least for me). But ý no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately oneýs opinions come down to a matter of belief. Itýs just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.

Itýs not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society ý I donýt think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; itýs just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think itýs important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

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

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

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.

________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> >
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

That's why we need Michael Wood.

Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.

From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Reputations

I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".

It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
>
>

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
Recent Activity: * New Members 23
Visit Your Group

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

OK, dumb American again, when I saw the blond lady being led in with her eyes close, my first thought was "who in the hell is she, and why are her eyes closed?" It looked campy and staged. Then when I found out who she was, and what she had accomplished, my thought were turned on their head, and it made absolute sense. I am 65, and my thought was yes, Richard is/was a fine looking man, but I felt more a sense of a lost family member finally being found, and as he might have looked to his contemporaries. My heavens, there we people who went simply gaga when Princes Diana died. One lady in my offices wept loudly and copiously for days. I admired her, and thought it was a terrible thing that the princes lost their mother, and that a lovely lady died so violently and so young. Were the folks who had all that emotion branded as loony bins, especially "men of a certain age"! I hate that phrase..... My sweet doctor says "you know, at your age" and when I give him the eye rolling sigh, he laughs. Let's just "keep calm and carry on"! This is my humble opinion.




On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:13 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Eileen, unfortunately there are people out there (ordinary people, shall we say) who feel the same. One of my closest friends said to me "that silly woman got on my nerves" and my friend is not a nasty person, she's actually one of the kindest people I know, she just isn't interested in the period and doesn't know what Philippa has done regarding fund raising etc and therefore how important this all was to her.

It isn't fair but apparently quite a few people out there feel the same way. Personally I think the programme should have been edited differently but no doubt C 4 thought it would be "good tv". Editing is everything in a film or tv programme and frankly they are only concerned with "good tv" they don't care about Richard and they certainly don't care about Philippa.

________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:56
Subject: Re: Reputations


Oh come on...your completely overegging the pudding now...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "patfallon13" wrote:
>
>
> Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as if she was the skeleton's widow and, although I haven't read the article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No wonder people see us as 'mutters' and 'weirdos'.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>"
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> >
> >
> > ý
> >
> > That's why we need Michael Wood.
> > ý
> > Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
> >
> > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> > Subject: Re: Reputations
> >
> > ý
> > I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
> >
> > It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. ý It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. ý The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> > >
> > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. ý I don't know how this can be overturned. ý We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> > Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> > Visit Your Group
> >
> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ýýý Unsubscribe ýýý Terms of Use ýýý Send us Feedback
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

It is a shame that Philippa is receiving so much negative press and
comments, I think that she has every right to behave any way that she thinks
fit. Her unbridled enthusiasm in the physical search for Richard III has had
a result beyond her and our wildest expectations.

Sadly people are so numbed by mediocrity and lack of enthusiasm that when a
shining light such as Philippa comes along they see her as someone to mock.

We really have not changed much since the days of Galileo, perhaps we owe
far more to the minority than we ever realize.

I would stand up and applaud her anywhere for all that she has done,
hopefully when the media frenzy dies down she will be known and recognized
for her wonderful achievements.



George



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Reputations







Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and
me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her
search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for
Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound
historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the
'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a
spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can
present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.

Carol responds:

I'm waiting for HRH the Duke of Gloucester to speak up. Wonder why he
hasn't--or did I just miss it?

Carol

Great, great post, George. What a woman! Maire.
--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> It is a shame that Philippa is receiving so much negative press and
> comments, I think that she has every right to behave any way that she thinks
> fit. Her unbridled enthusiasm in the physical search for Richard III has had
> a result beyond her and our wildest expectations.
>
> Sadly people are so numbed by mediocrity and lack of enthusiasm that when a
> shining light such as Philippa comes along they see her as someone to mock.
>
> We really have not changed much since the days of Galileo, perhaps we owe
> far more to the minority than we ever realize.
>
> I would stand up and applaud her anywhere for all that she has done,
> hopefully when the media frenzy dies down she will be known and recognized
> for her wonderful achievements.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:20 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and
> me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her
> search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for
> Richard III'.
> >
> > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound
> historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the
> 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a
> spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can
> present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm waiting for HRH the Duke of Gloucester to speak up. Wonder why he
> hasn't--or did I just miss it?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sadly, Marie, I think that you're spot on with everything you say. I really wish it was different.



--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I totally agree about the "women of a certain age" thing. When I first got into Richard III I was young, and so were a lot of other Ricardians. We were then silly young things in love with a dead king. Now we're women of a certain age doing the women-of-a-certain-age version. In a nutshell, it's mysogyny.
>
> I know from having ME how difficult it is to get a valid point across to the media if the establishment big guns, popular prejudice and mysogyny are ranged on the other side. The biological abnormalities associated with the illness are well proven; it has been classified by the World Health Organisation as a neurological illness since the 1960s, many individuals like myself got ill from vaccination: BUT in several countries, most notably Britain, it got taken over by old-fashioned Freudian psychiatrists - funded by pharma and chemical companies and health insurance companies who were either afraid they had caused it or didn't want to pay out on the insurance - who claimed it was all in the mind, we were just depressed or stressed or something moveable goalposts) but too proud to admit to mental illness; and what is one of their prime reasons for believing it to be "hystrerical": it's because it's commoner in women than in men! By that token gall stones and autoimmune diseases must also be of hysterical origin.
>
> All government money for this illness goes to psychiatry and forced exercise regimes and for many years people with the condition in the UK were denied sickness benefits until the government was made aware of their obligation to abide by WHO illness classification.
> You can't get the message across to the media. The science is boring. We object to the incorrect mental health label, which denies us appropriate tests and treatment, and it is all over the press that we are prejudiced against the mentally ill. We criticise the work of these psychiatrists (whose use of logic is wobblier than Alison Weir's) and they say we are victimising them. Every so often one or other of them turns up in the papers claiming to have received death threats from "ME activists", but they've never given any details. The same group are behind the denial of Gulf War Illness, and the man behind it all has - what, been sacked? given early retirement? I hear you ask. No, he's just been given a knighthood. I won't name him for fear he'll start squealing about victimisation again and saying - as he is prone too - that he needs to go back to Afghanistan where he feels safer.
>
> This may sound terribly OT, but my point is that ANYTHING can be turned against you, and will be if the media so desire. Any decent person with a truth to tell can be ridiculed, and any lying plonker turned into hero. So we need to be really careful.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Johanne and Eileen and all the rest,
> >  
> > As I said a bit earlier I do think Philippa was almost set up to look at times as she did. It's supposedly what makes 'good' television. I feel for her. She's not a professional and who knows what say she had in the editing. We owe her a debt for all sorts of reasons, and one of those is for setting yourself up to go on telly when the outcome isn't at all certain. Farnaby was OK but not someone experienced at protecting a quite vulnerable person.
> >  
> > I'm as fed up with the women of a certain age thing as I'm sure all the rest of us are. Like most of us of around that age a lot of time was spent by us forging pathways previously trodden by men, it was part of the (admirable) post-war idealism about peace and equality and to concede we need a man on this occasion is no easy thing. Perhaps we should say instead that we need a historian with a good pedigree, male or female, to put our case - someone with a good track record elsewhere. But it's difficult. Helen Castor, young and well qualified, did her excellent series on the She-Wolves but was sneered at by some for being 'too feminist'. And we know Starkey hates female historians - not that that says a lot.
> >  
> > The Michael Wood type of  comment about the princes is becoming more prevalent and perhaps we should welcome it. At least it's getting away from sentimentalism and enables some of them to sit more comfortably on the fence - they could even jump off it one day. But I agree with Johanne that it should be someone who knows and loves the fifteenth century as well as having so-called academic credentials. They're going to be hard to find. Perhaps we shouldn't have let the Foundation grab Robert Hardy?
> >  
> > Sorry, that's just my twopenneth. PS What we mustn't let the issue do is damage our own solidarity      By the way, do we know why Annette pulled out?    Cheers 
> >  
> >    
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Johanne Tournier
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 18:07
> > Subject: RE: Re: Reputations
> >
> >  
> >
> > To Everyone here â€"
> >
> > Now, now, it’s easy to quibble, but how would any of us do if we were in Philippa’s position? What have any of *us* actually done for Richard’s memory? (I for one know that I haven’t done more than talk, or rather write copious amounts on the subject.) If it weren’t for Philippa, Richard would still be lying under the car park. (smile)
> >
> > Regarding Michael Wood, for instance, yes he’s a great commentator; I’ve really enjoyed his stuff over the years. But I saw a quote within the last couple of days on one of the websites â€" there was an “anti-Richard” type and then Wood â€" and what Wood said in defence of Richard was, more or less, “So what if he killed his nephews? There were lots of killings in those days.” Now, frankly, I don’t think that’s the best defence that Richard could have. And, maybe looking for a guy spokesman is, well, a bit sexist.
> >
> > It really bothers me to have people here deride “women of a certain age” blah, blah, blah â€" I’m 63, and I can’t do anything about that, nor am I likely to change the “woman” part either. I mean, why should we diminish each other? It’s better to say there’s room for all types in the Society, scholars and amateurs alike, women as well as men, and “lovers” of Richard as well as more “detached” types - all people who believe in the mission of the Society, which I certainly do. Does it come down ultimately to faith and a basic belief in Richard’s innate goodness? Yur durn tootin’ it does (at least for me). But â€" no matter how scholarly one is, ultimately one’s opinions come down to a matter of belief. It’s just that some people are better at putting the arguments together that support that belief.
> >
> > It’s not a bad idea to have additional spokes-people for the Society â€" I don’t think Philippa actually applied for that job anyway; it’s just the position she found herself in, being in charge of the Project, that she was thrust unaccustomedly into the public view. I for one feel very much indebted to her. But I do think it’s important that the spokespeople really know the subject, as well as being interesting, having some academic credentials, but also being there to serve the greater purpose of King Richard III.
> >
> > 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 Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:04 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> >
> > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@ >
> > To: " " >
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:54
> > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> >
> > That's why we need Michael Wood.
> >
> > Of course anyone really interested in history these days of any kind is considered to be a weirdo.
> >
> > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:48
> > Subject: Re: Reputations
> >
> > I know. On the other forum I mentioned earlier, people have labelled Ricardians as "nutters" and "weirdos".
> >
> > It is going to be very hard to change the perceptions of some that the Society is not just a fan club made up of middle aged women in love with a dead king.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
> > >
> > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (29)
> > Recent Activity: * New Members 23
> > Visit Your Group
> >
> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> You know... what a sad day on here when someone like Philippa, who has led the search for Richard from the front, banged on doors and all it entailed to get the tv company to get interested, raised money, then, OMG, shows a bit of human passion and then gets mullered on here. I hope Phillipa does not read the messages on here because I feel totally embarrassed by it. Its quite shameful and undeserved...Even if one felt a tad on those lines would it not be better to keep one's thoughts to oneself seeing that at the end of the day Richard was found which is a minor miracle in itself. Eileen

Carol responds:

Still, though, I wish that Annette had stayed with the documentary to show a more scholarly side to the R III Society. We really do combine two sorts of people, I think. Philippa represents one group; Annette would have represented the other. No blame to Philippa; we owe her an enormous debt. But it's unfortunate that the anti-Richards of the world are attacking her as well as jumping on the curved back as if it proved the hunchback legend, which, in turn "proves" for them that the Tudor version of history is accurate.

Anyone associated with Richard can be a target, including his supporters (Lovell, Norfolk, Tyrell, Ratcliffe, et al.) Philippa is just the latest victim of abuse, along with the Society itself.

Anyway, I do wish that the documentary had been handled differently and that the word "hunchback" hadn't thrown around so carelessly. And though I think Simon Farnaby is a sweetheart, bless his Ricardian soul, it may have been a mistake to have him as presenter.

Oh, well. They did their best, and as you say, Eileen, many of us would have been just as emotional as Philippa. I would have said "no! no!" too if Jo Appleby had called him a hunchback as she was sweeping away the dirt from his bones and used that as a means of identifying him. That's the part of the documentary that I'm concerned about, not Philippa closing her eyes as she goes to "meet" Richard and being overwhelmed by the experience of seeing such a lifelike replica.

Carol

.haha! We are the burr under the saddle!!!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 4:30 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> I put a comment onthe Hrny Vth birthday bit - "I don't care - he was vile". Not sure if that will stay!
>
>
>
> Is she hedging her bets or is she a Tudor spy? I might ask.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:25
> Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page
>
>
> Well, I did get back to stir the water a bit. I am waiting for an avalanche of hate massage:/ Ah well!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:41 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > She'll probably delete your post although I don't think she actually reads anything because she never answers any of the questions, even the ones from real fans.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:21
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> >
> > I know most of you hate facebook but please do leave comments on this page. I was rude enough to point out people should read Sunne and not Kingmaker's Daughter. I am sure this time she will block me.......
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> >
> > That's why I bothered to look. She is dangerous because she's SO influential. Obviously decided more money's to be made in the 'controversial' camp. We'll just have to out-write her (won't we Paul?)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: highland_katherine mailto:katherine.michaud%40btinternet.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: PG Facebook Page
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I did have a quick look. I couldn't resist.
> >
> > On another forum that I frequent someone posted that Richard was terribly cruel to his wife ( I paraphrase ) How did she know this? because she'd read The Kingmaker's Daughter and Philippa Gregory says so. Fortunately, a few people did point out that PG writes fiction and some went further adding that it wasn't very good fiction, either.
> >
> > But it does show the clout that someone as popular as PG can have if people believe that she really does do a lot of research or that she is, as apparently she claims, a historian.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't go there but 6000 have!
> > >
> > > R found to be 'twisted in mind and body' like Shakespeare said but should be given decent burial
> > >
> > > Celebrate H8's birthday
> > >
> > > Shots from White Queen showing soldiers in Norman helmets
> > >
> > > And people listen to her ......
> > >
> > > Fridge again H
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I do agree, George, that Philippa is amazing. And without her and others with her type of vision we would never have found Richard's remains. All I am saying is that I know what the media are like, and they can and will use her passion against her.
Marie

--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> It is a shame that Philippa is receiving so much negative press and
> comments, I think that she has every right to behave any way that she thinks
> fit. Her unbridled enthusiasm in the physical search for Richard III has had
> a result beyond her and our wildest expectations.
>
> Sadly people are so numbed by mediocrity and lack of enthusiasm that when a
> shining light such as Philippa comes along they see her as someone to mock.
>
> We really have not changed much since the days of Galileo, perhaps we owe
> far more to the minority than we ever realize.
>
> I would stand up and applaud her anywhere for all that she has done,
> hopefully when the media frenzy dies down she will be known and recognized
> for her wonderful achievements.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:20 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and
> me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her
> search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for
> Richard III'.
> >
> > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound
> historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the
> 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a
> spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can
> present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm waiting for HRH the Duke of Gloucester to speak up. Wonder why he
> hasn't--or did I just miss it?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The first historia in jeans?



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations


 

Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work.  He is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since the mid 70s.    He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.

Carol responds:

Sorry to reveal my ignorance on this point, but who on earth is Michael Wood and what is his connection with Richard? Is he any more knowledgeable than Simon ("I am a Ricardian") Farnaby?

BTW, I hope that "Horrible Histories" doesn't update the Richard III song ("Never had a hump and my arm was all right" changed to "had a crooked back but my arm was all right").

Carol

Beautifully put, George! We Ricardians especially - maybe everyone - are
greatly in her debt. I imagine she's probably being hounded by cranks, too.
I sent her a Jacquie Lawson card more than a month ago to thank her for her
vision and all her efforts, and she has never picked it up. That's a bit of
a disappointment. However, Philippa and Richard Buckley are scheduled to
speak to the Sharon Kay Penman tour group when it gets to Leicester. I hope
I will be able to express my appreciation to both of them in person at that
time.



Thanks for your kind words.



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 George
Butterfield
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:46 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Reputations





It is a shame that Philippa is receiving so much negative press and
comments, I think that she has every right to behave any way that she thinks
fit. Her unbridled enthusiasm in the physical search for Richard III has had
a result beyond her and our wildest expectations.

Sadly people are so numbed by mediocrity and lack of enthusiasm that when a
shining light such as Philippa comes along they see her as someone to mock.

We really have not changed much since the days of Galileo, perhaps we owe
far more to the minority than we ever realize.

I would stand up and applaud her anywhere for all that she has done,
hopefully when the media frenzy dies down she will be known and recognized
for her wonderful achievements.

George

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:20 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Reputations

Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and
me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her
search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for
Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound
historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the
'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a
spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can
present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.

Carol responds:

I'm waiting for HRH the Duke of Gloucester to speak up. Wonder why he
hasn't--or did I just miss it?

Carol

There is a Sharon Kay Penman Tour.......I did not know that. How wonderful. Do you suppose I can Google that? I would love to tread those footsteps!

On Feb 6, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:



Beautifully put, George! We Ricardians especially - maybe everyone - are
greatly in her debt. I imagine she's probably being hounded by cranks, too.
I sent her a Jacquie Lawson card more than a month ago to thank her for her
vision and all her efforts, and she has never picked it up. That's a bit of
a disappointment. However, Philippa and Richard Buckley are scheduled to
speak to the Sharon Kay Penman tour group when it gets to Leicester. I hope
I will be able to express my appreciation to both of them in person at that
time.

Thanks for your kind words.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

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

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

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of George
Butterfield
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:46 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: Re: Reputations

It is a shame that Philippa is receiving so much negative press and
comments, I think that she has every right to behave any way that she thinks
fit. Her unbridled enthusiasm in the physical search for Richard III has had
a result beyond her and our wildest expectations.

Sadly people are so numbed by mediocrity and lack of enthusiasm that when a
shining light such as Philippa comes along they see her as someone to mock.

We really have not changed much since the days of Galileo, perhaps we owe
far more to the minority than we ever realize.

I would stand up and applaud her anywhere for all that she has done,
hopefully when the media frenzy dies down she will be known and recognized
for her wonderful achievements.

George

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:20 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: Reputations

Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and
me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her
search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for
Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound
historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the
'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a
spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can
present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.

Carol responds:

I'm waiting for HRH the Duke of Gloucester to speak up. Wonder why he
hasn't--or did I just miss it?

Carol

Hi

Just responding to some of the comments here. Possibly, it was the stance that the programme was heading in that Annette felt uneasy about and led to her withdrawing as apparently she did carry on helping Phillipa with research etc. It is unfair to criticise Phillipa, especially in view of the fact that the programme was probably only made on the understanding that the production company had final control over content, direction, editing etc. We all know how hard it was to actually get the company to take up the option to make the programme, remember the emails we sent last August. We were just happy that a programme would be made about the dig and at the time, when the excavation began, the concern was that the dig would continue long enough and hopefully there would be a positive outcome.

I don't quite know how to say this but Phillipa's position within that structure was quite vulnerable, which the TV company has chosen to project as their angle for the programme. The television company held all the cards and have obviously pitched the programme around the premise of a couple of amateurs, Phillipa and John who belonging to an "obscure?" Society has a long standing quest which they have pursued for many years. The programme chose to focus on Phillipa's quest and how she responded as the tests were revealed and the outcomes explained. The programme makers could have chosen many different ways to make the programme such as concentrating on the evidence only or the investigating team of experts or the DNA links or put in into an archaeological/historical context. They didn't. Blame the programme makers; it is what happens when the media are involved. Be careful what you wish for you might get it - as the saying goes. If you want their help, you can have it. But they make the rules.

On another note, Marie is spot on regarding another aspect of the media and the establishment and how they control opinion and how people are labelled and pidgeon-holed as cranks or looneys for voicing an opinion that differs from the established view. Also how ageism (people of a certain age, the invisible generation) and sexism (women of a certain age) gives others opportunities to ridicule points of views that differ from their own. I would add some other medical conditions to the list Marie mentioned such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromyalgia that have been dismissed in the same way as ME and Gulf War Syndrome.

On a further topic, in yesterday's Times there was a horrendous article by Ian Mortimer on Richard III. A hatchet job worthy of Seward. This from a man whose ancestor committed, probably, the most heinous crime imaginable against Edward II, which is virtually never spoken of, except in hushed tones. And who Mortimer continually tries to exonerate. His latest excuse is to create a fantasy parallel existence whereby his ancestor did not brutally murder his king, who instead abdicated in favour of his son and went to live aboard thereby exonerated Roger Mortimer of his crimes. I don't think so.
Sorry this is so long. Just needed to get a few things off my chest. It was The Times article that did it!
Elaine


--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> >
> > You know... what a sad day on here when someone like Philippa, who has led the search for Richard from the front, banged on doors and all it entailed to get the tv company to get interested, raised money, then, OMG, shows a bit of human passion and then gets mullered on here. I hope Phillipa does not read the messages on here because I feel totally embarrassed by it. Its quite shameful and undeserved...Even if one felt a tad on those lines would it not be better to keep one's thoughts to oneself seeing that at the end of the day Richard was found which is a minor miracle in itself. Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Still, though, I wish that Annette had stayed with the documentary to show a more scholarly side to the R III Society. We really do combine two sorts of people, I think. Philippa represents one group; Annette would have represented the other. No blame to Philippa; we owe her an enormous debt. But it's unfortunate that the anti-Richards of the world are attacking her as well as jumping on the curved back as if it proved the hunchback legend, which, in turn "proves" for them that the Tudor version of history is accurate.
>
> Anyone associated with Richard can be a target, including his supporters (Lovell, Norfolk, Tyrell, Ratcliffe, et al.) Philippa is just the latest victim of abuse, along with the Society itself.
>
> Anyway, I do wish that the documentary had been handled differently and that the word "hunchback" hadn't thrown around so carelessly. And though I think Simon Farnaby is a sweetheart, bless his Ricardian soul, it may have been a mistake to have him as presenter.
>
> Oh, well. They did their best, and as you say, Eileen, many of us would have been just as emotional as Philippa. I would have said "no! no!" too if Jo Appleby had called him a hunchback as she was sweeping away the dirt from his bones and used that as a means of identifying him. That's the part of the documentary that I'm concerned about, not Philippa closing her eyes as she goes to "meet" Richard and being overwhelmed by the experience of seeing such a lifelike replica.
>
> Carol
>

"ellrosa1452" wrote:

> Just responding to some of the comments here. Possibly, it was the stance that the programme was heading in that Annette felt uneasy about and led to her withdrawing as apparently she did carry on helping Phillipa with research etc. [snip]

Carol responds:

Yes. Here's what she told me on January 30 (I have permission to quote her):

"I pulled out of it when I realised they had departed from the deal originally agreed with Philippa Langley, and I had doubts about the direction it was taking. Have been helping Philippa with research intended for the programme, but that's the extent of it."

That's all I know about the matter.

Carol

Well said, Eileen.

The bottom line for me is that were it not for Philippa, Richard would still be lying in the car park.

Her loyalty is to be admired, not mocked, and I think Richard would have been the first to thank her for it.

~Weds


--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> You know... what a sad day on here when someone like Philippa, who has led the search for Richard from the front, banged on doors and all it entailed to get the tv company to get interested, raised money, then, OMG, shows a bit of human passion and then gets mullered on here. I hope Phillipa does not read the messages on here because I feel totally embarrassed by it. Its quite shameful and undeserved...Even if one felt a tad on those lines would it not be better to keep one's thoughts to oneself seeing that at the end of the day Richard was found which is a minor miracle in itself. Eileen
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Oh come on...your completely overegging the pudding now...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "patfallon13" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Philippa Langley may have done a good job in finding the bones but she has certainly not done Ricardians any favours in the image she is portraying. She comes across as a silly love sick teenager and as she is getting so much media coverage at the moment this is the image people will pick up on. Her dramatics on the Channel 4 programme spoilt it for me as she seemed a complete idiot. One paper remarked that she acted as if she was the skeleton's widow and, although I haven't read the article in The Times it seems this maybe is how she sees herself. No wonder people see us as 'mutters' and 'weirdos'.

I was once at a very sad funeral--sadder than most, I mean. It was a wonderful woman I knew slightly, but admired very much, as did everyone who knew her. She had the form of brain cancer one would least like to have if one were given a choice, and she lasted a little bit under 18 months from her initial diagnosis. Everyone who knew her could have made a huge list of other people who should have met that fate before the universe got around to picking on this poor woman.

I was astounded to hear this universally beloved woman's brother say, during the eulogy, "And to our sister out of state, who chose not to be part of the last year of her little sister's life, and who isn't here today, all I can say is... you missed it. You missed it."

Far's I'm concerned, anyone who would criticize Ms. Langley for ANYTHING connected with this historical blockbuster either doesn't know the story (in which case there's a chance to battle some ignorance, should they choose to avail themselves of the opportunity) or isn't worth bothering about. Let 'em go back to their reality TV and good luck to 'em.

The accomplishment of finding the remains of the maligned king will shine long, long after the bullies have found another target.

In other words... the mockers? They've missed it. And they won't get another chance to react to learning the news.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I do agree, George, that Philippa is amazing. And without her and others with her type of vision we would never have found Richard's remains. All I am saying is that I know what the media are like, and they can and will use her passion against her.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > It is a shame that Philippa is receiving so much negative press and
> > comments, I think that she has every right to behave any way that she thinks
> > fit. Her unbridled enthusiasm in the physical search for Richard III has had
> > a result beyond her and our wildest expectations.
> >
> > Sadly people are so numbed by mediocrity and lack of enthusiasm that when a
> > shining light such as Philippa comes along they see her as someone to mock.
> >
> > We really have not changed much since the days of Galileo, perhaps we owe
> > far more to the minority than we ever realize.
> >
> > I would stand up and applaud her anywhere for all that she has done,
> > hopefully when the media frenzy dies down she will be known and recognized
> > for her wonderful achievements.
> >
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:20 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Reputations
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and
> > me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her
> > search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for
> > Richard III'.
> > >
> > > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound
> > historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the
> > 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a
> > spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can
> > present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I'm waiting for HRH the Duke of Gloucester to speak up. Wonder why he
> > hasn't--or did I just miss it?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

An entire generation of history geeks went melty-eyed watching him stand on the deck of a ship, declaiming, "Paris and Helen stopped at this island, where, Homer sayze, 'We lay a night in one another's arms.""

I appreciated the geniality, the earnestness, and the jeans, but I gotta tell ya, the missus and I still intone, "Homer sayze" to one another occasionally, and it always cracks us up.

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> The first historia in jeans?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>
>  
>
> Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work.  He is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since the mid 70s.    He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.

Totally agree Marie and George, without Philippa, we wouldn't be in the happy position of having found Richard and being able to give him an honourable burial in a place where people can come and pay their respects.  It is the media reaction and the use to which they are putting Philippa's reactions that I am concerned about.  It is being used by many out there on the Internet to denigrate members of the Society.  After all the years of hard work the Society has done to rehabilitate Richard's reputation, there is a danger that anything it tries to do now will be dismissed as 'romantic tosh'.  That saddens me.


________________________________
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

 
I do agree, George, that Philippa is amazing. And without her and others with her type of vision we would never have found Richard's remains. All I am saying is that I know what the media are like, and they can and will use her passion against her.
Marie

--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> It is a shame that Philippa is receiving so much negative press and
> comments, I think that she has every right to behave any way that she thinks
> fit. Her unbridled enthusiasm in the physical search for Richard III has had
> a result beyond her and our wildest expectations.
>
> Sadly people are so numbed by mediocrity and lack of enthusiasm that when a
> shining light such as Philippa comes along they see her as someone to mock.
>
> We really have not changed much since the days of Galileo, perhaps we owe
> far more to the minority than we ever realize.
>
> I would stand up and applaud her anywhere for all that she has done,
> hopefully when the media frenzy dies down she will be known and recognized
> for her wonderful achievements.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:20 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and
> me: a love story'. It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her
> search for Richard. The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for
> Richard III'.
> >
> > This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound
> historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the
> 'odd/weird' angle. I don't know how this can be overturned. We need a
> spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can
> present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm waiting for HRH the Duke of Gloucester to speak up. Wonder why he
> hasn't--or did I just miss it?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The Times today has an article in its times2 section called 'Richard and me: a love story'.  It is based on an interview Philippa gave about her search for Richard.  The cover has the strap line 'The woman who fell for Richard III'.
>
> This is unfortunate as the Society is trying to present itself as a sound historical group, but all the media seem to be interested in is the 'odd/weird' angle.  I don't know how this can be overturned.  We need a spokesperson who can not be tarred with the 'romantic' brush but who can present the serious purpose of the Society and what it does in that regard.
>
>
>

Hi from an old Ricardian (was a young one back around 79-80 when I read Sunne in Splendour). In 92 I visited the Bosworth battlefield (so they changed it later) But since then , having kids, divorce etc put this on the back-burner for me until this week. Here in Perth (Oz) I had heard nothing about the find until the announcement they had confirmed it was Richard. Been busy playing catch up since and discovered there is a branch here in Perth so hopefully I will be rejoining the ranks shortly :)

I thought it appropriate that I post as a reply here as I have an odd tale myself that will hopefully find it's way to Philippa, having located and watched the channel four program on Youtube and realised that, apart from Philippa, none of them actually got the 'connection' someone can develop for Richard.

When she explained how she felt when standing by the parking space with the 'R' on it, which probably just meant (to whoever put it there) that the space was reserved, Philippa 'felt' something else, something not explainable by 'ordinary' means. That Richard was right where she 'felt' he was must have come as a shock to all the cynics.

But not to me, neither was her feeling of nausea while they excavated the remains an unknown sensation to me, though how she interpreted that feeling herself I don't know. Of course we were all surprised and shocked at the scoliosis, I guess Tudor just exaggerated what must have been an often painful disorder which he refused to let dominate his life.

I was around 23 when I got hold of 'Sunne' and while interested in history, it was more WWI or the Romans, not the Wars of the Roses and I imagine if you asked me then about Richard I would have likely have given the standard Tudor (or Olivier) line.

I read the book with interest, as it is a cracking good 'historical faction' to me, but the shocker was when I got to the part of Stanley's men charging into Richards, something seemed to scream out deep within me 'Treachery Treachery Treachery' !!

Ok so now I am a nutter too? Nup I was a cynic then and a darn sight more cynical now, this was why I was so surprised at the reaction I had. After all here was just another killing and I have read of many, I didn't even have the same, almost visceral, reaction to the account of Caesar's equally treacherous murder.

I might add I have visited many battlefields in England, France, Belgium and Netherlands and never been affected emotionally at all, beyond the usual sadness at the horrific waste.
It was only while reading up on stuff the last couple of days that I found that there is an account that Richard went down fighting and shouting Treachery !

As for the nausea feeling, the only time I felt like that was in the Colosseum, I was fine with the rest of the Forum, the spot my other 'hero' Caesar was burned and all, but after 15 minutes in the Colosseum I felt nauseous and headachey and had to get out, once outside the sensations disappeared immediately. Weird, well maybe but 'There are more things....'

So I really was onside for Philippa watching the program, her responses, verbal and emotional were open and honest, I felt 'gutted' myself seeing the spine and if I had been Philippa , after all her efforts to get to this point, I think I would have needed to sit down and have a quiet moment to regroup myself too.

Well that was what I wanted to say, hopefully Philippa will be encouraged by it and also I am sure she is learning fast how NOT to give the media anything they can poke fun at, the vultures will laugh, misquote and edit to slant any story the way they want it, and I doubt they have any real understanding of Philippa and her feelings after her many years of learning and pondering.

Bottom Line - Philippa was 'right on the money' and nobody can, after the dust has cleared, EVER take that away from her

As we say here ONYA Philippa !!

"Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work.  He
is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him
since the mid 70s.    He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard."

He gave a talk to a group of University archaeology students in the 80s and went to the pub with them afterwards. One of the girls stole the glass he had drunk from and was restrained with difficulty from stealing his chair!

It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.

Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.

My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  

If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.

I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.

Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.

Any thoughts?

I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
Marie

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
>
> Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
>
> My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
>
> If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
>
> I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
>
> Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>

Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.


________________________________
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


 
I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
Marie

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
>
> Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
>
> My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
>
> If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
>
> I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
>
> Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>

In 83 he was considering doing a film about Richard to tie in with the quincentenary, but then he was offered the alternative of Marco Polo and travelling across Europe and Asia to China. Middleham or China?
No brainer for Michael. I at least managed to get a half hour made about the celebrations at Middleham for Yorkshire TV. That only happened because in my pitch I mentioned the Duke of Gloucester would be visiting, and producers went "royalty oooh", not realising how dull the duke is on camera. 'Garde de robes. Ah." Still only had to put him on screen for a minute!
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!




On 6 Feb 2013, at 21:00, liz williams wrote:

> Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work. He is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since the mid 70s. He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 20:29
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
>> Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry to reveal my ignorance on this point, but who on earth is Michael Wood and what is his connection with Richard? Is he any more knowledgeable than Simon ("I am a Ricardian") Farnaby?
>
> BTW, I hope that "Horrible Histories" doesn't update the Richard III song ("Never had a hump and my arm was all right" changed to "had a crooked back but my arm was all right").
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
>
>
> ________________________________
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
>  
> I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> >
> > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
> >
> > My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
> >
> > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> >
> > I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> >
> > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

TIGHT jeans!

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 22:27
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

 
The first historia in jeans?

________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations


 

Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work.  He is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since the mid 70s.    He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.

Carol responds:

Sorry to reveal my ignorance on this point, but who on earth is Michael Wood and what is his connection with Richard? Is he any more knowledgeable than Simon ("I am a Ricardian") Farnaby?

BTW, I hope that "Horrible Histories" doesn't update the Richard III song ("Never had a hump and my arm was all right" changed to "had a crooked back but my arm was all right").

Carol

Great post and SO true.  Let's not forget the media can destroy people if they so choose.
 
As for Mortiemr, I bought his book about Edward III at the same time as the Dan Jones one.  I think I'll have to say if I can send them both back unread. God knows if I do read them now, I won't believe a word in either of them.

From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:45
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
Hi

Just responding to some of the comments here. Possibly, it was the stance that the programme was heading in that Annette felt uneasy about and led to her withdrawing as apparently she did carry on helping Phillipa with research etc. It is unfair to criticise Phillipa, especially in view of the fact that the programme was probably only made on the understanding that the production company had final control over content, direction, editing etc. We all know how hard it was to actually get the company to take up the option to make the programme, remember the emails we sent last August. We were just happy that a programme would be made about the dig and at the time, when the excavation began, the concern was that the dig would continue long enough and hopefully there would be a positive outcome.

I don't quite know how to say this but Phillipa's position within that structure was quite vulnerable, which the TV company has chosen to project as their angle for the programme. The television company held all the cards and have obviously pitched the programme around the premise of a couple of amateurs, Phillipa and John who belonging to an "obscure?" Society has a long standing quest which they have pursued for many years. The programme chose to focus on Phillipa's quest and how she responded as the tests were revealed and the outcomes explained. The programme makers could have chosen many different ways to make the programme such as concentrating on the evidence only or the investigating team of experts or the DNA links or put in into an archaeological/historical context. They didn't. Blame the programme makers; it is what happens when the media are involved. Be careful what you wish for you might get it - as the saying goes. If you want their help,
you can have it. But they make the rules.

On another note, Marie is spot on regarding another aspect of the media and the establishment and how they control opinion and how people are labelled and pidgeon-holed as cranks or looneys for voicing an opinion that differs from the established view. Also how ageism (people of a certain age, the invisible generation) and sexism (women of a certain age) gives others opportunities to ridicule points of views that differ from their own. I would add some other medical conditions to the list Marie mentioned such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromyalgia that have been dismissed in the same way as ME and Gulf War Syndrome.

On a further topic, in yesterday's Times there was a horrendous article by Ian Mortimer on Richard III. A hatchet job worthy of Seward. This from a man whose ancestor committed, probably, the most heinous crime imaginable against Edward II, which is virtually never spoken of, except in hushed tones. And who Mortimer continually tries to exonerate. His latest excuse is to create a fantasy parallel existence whereby his ancestor did not brutally murder his king, who instead abdicated in favour of his son and went to live aboard thereby exonerated Roger Mortimer of his crimes. I don't think so.
Sorry this is so long. Just needed to get a few things off my chest. It was The Times article that did it!
Elaine


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

He was a cutie in the 70s. I still have his Trojan War series on dvd - he's so dynamic, smart and charming. Haven't seen him in years. Maire.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
>
>
> TIGHT jeans!
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 22:27
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>  
> The first historia in jeans?
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>
>  
>
> Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work.  He is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since the mid 70s.    He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 20:29
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>  
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > We think alike - BUT the respondents on Yahoo and the BBC were saying how great it was to have history, not reality. There were hundreds of ticks to that.
> > Someone must live next door to Michael Wood.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry to reveal my ignorance on this point, but who on earth is Michael Wood and what is his connection with Richard? Is he any more knowledgeable than Simon ("I am a Ricardian") Farnaby?
>
> BTW, I hope that "Horrible Histories" doesn't update the Richard III song ("Never had a hump and my arm was all right" changed to "had a crooked back but my arm was all right").
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, I can't type today.  MortIMEr and should be "see if I can" not say if I can.
 

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:03
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations

 
Great post and SO true.  Let's not forget the media can destroy people if they so choose.
 
As for Mortiemr, I bought his book about Edward III at the same time as the Dan Jones one.  I think I'll have to say if I can send them both back unread. God knows if I do read them now, I won't believe a word in either of them.

Ian Mortimer is no relation to Roger Mortimer - he makes that quite clear.  I have read his book about Edward II and he makes a strong case for his survival.  It is worth reading.  He is a good historian, just not a supporter of Richard III.  His 'Time Traveller' guides are excellent and really worth reading to get an understanding of a wide range of aspects of life in Medieval England and Elizabethan England.

 liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:


 
Great post and SO true.  Let's not forget the media can destroy people if they so choose.
 
As for Mortiemr, I bought his book about Edward III at the same time as the Dan Jones one.  I think I'll have to say if I can send them both back unread. God knows if I do read them now, I won't believe a word in either of them.

From: ellrosa1452 kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:45
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
Hi

Just responding to some of the comments here. Possibly, it was the stance that the programme was heading in that Annette felt uneasy about and led to her withdrawing as apparently she did carry on helping Phillipa with research etc. It is unfair to criticise Phillipa, especially in view of the fact that the programme was probably only made on the understanding that the production company had final control over content, direction, editing etc. We all know how hard it was to actually get the company to take up the option to make the programme, remember the emails we sent last August. We were just happy that a programme would be made about the dig and at the time, when the excavation began, the concern was that the dig would continue long enough and hopefully there would be a positive outcome.

I don't quite know how to say this but Phillipa's position within that structure was quite vulnerable, which the TV company has chosen to project as their angle for the programme. The television company held all the cards and have obviously pitched the programme around the premise of a couple of amateurs, Phillipa and John who belonging to an "obscure?" Society has a long standing quest which they have pursued for many years. The programme chose to focus on Phillipa's quest and how she responded as the tests were revealed and the outcomes explained. The programme makers could have chosen many different ways to make the programme such as concentrating on the evidence only or the investigating team of experts or the DNA links or put in into an archaeological/historical context. They didn't. Blame the programme makers; it is what happens when the media are involved. Be careful what you wish for you might get it - as the saying goes. If you want their help,
you can have it. But they make the rules.

On another note, Marie is spot on regarding another aspect of the media and the establishment and how they control opinion and how people are labelled and pidgeon-holed as cranks or looneys for voicing an opinion that differs from the established view. Also how ageism (people of a certain age, the invisible generation) and sexism (women of a certain age) gives others opportunities to ridicule points of views that differ from their own. I would add some other medical conditions to the list Marie mentioned such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromyalgia that have been dismissed in the same way as ME and Gulf War Syndrome.

On a further topic, in yesterday's Times there was a horrendous article by Ian Mortimer on Richard III. A hatchet job worthy of Seward. This from a man whose ancestor committed, probably, the most heinous crime imaginable against Edward II, which is virtually never spoken of, except in hushed tones. And who Mortimer continually tries to exonerate. His latest excuse is to create a fantasy parallel existence whereby his ancestor did not brutally murder his king, who instead abdicated in favour of his son and went to live aboard thereby exonerated Roger Mortimer of his crimes. I don't think so.
Sorry this is so long. Just needed to get a few things off my chest. It was The Times article that did it!
Elaine

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

IIRC, Ian Mortimer is- or,at least, was - a member of the Society.

He has a book on Richard, Duke of York coming out next year and I was looking forward to reading it as I have read The Time Travellers Guide to Mediaeval England and his books on Henry IV and Henry V and enjoyed them all.

I'm not so sure, now.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Great post and SO true.  Let's not forget the media can destroy people if they so choose.
>  
> As for Mortiemr, I bought his book about Edward III at the same time as the Dan Jones one.  I think I'll have to say if I can send them both back unread. God knows if I do read them now, I won't believe a word in either of them.
>
> From: ellrosa1452
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:45
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>  
> Hi
>
> Just responding to some of the comments here. Possibly, it was the stance that the programme was heading in that Annette felt uneasy about and led to her withdrawing as apparently she did carry on helping Phillipa with research etc. It is unfair to criticise Phillipa, especially in view of the fact that the programme was probably only made on the understanding that the production company had final control over content, direction, editing etc. We all know how hard it was to actually get the company to take up the option to make the programme, remember the emails we sent last August. We were just happy that a programme would be made about the dig and at the time, when the excavation began, the concern was that the dig would continue long enough and hopefully there would be a positive outcome.
>
> I don't quite know how to say this but Phillipa's position within that structure was quite vulnerable, which the TV company has chosen to project as their angle for the programme. The television company held all the cards and have obviously pitched the programme around the premise of a couple of amateurs, Phillipa and John who belonging to an "obscure?" Society has a long standing quest which they have pursued for many years. The programme chose to focus on Phillipa's quest and how she responded as the tests were revealed and the outcomes explained. The programme makers could have chosen many different ways to make the programme such as concentrating on the evidence only or the investigating team of experts or the DNA links or put in into an archaeological/historical context. They didn't. Blame the programme makers; it is what happens when the media are involved. Be careful what you wish for you might get it - as the saying goes. If you want their help,
> you can have it. But they make the rules.
>
> On another note, Marie is spot on regarding another aspect of the media and the establishment and how they control opinion and how people are labelled and pidgeon-holed as cranks or looneys for voicing an opinion that differs from the established view. Also how ageism (people of a certain age, the invisible generation) and sexism (women of a certain age) gives others opportunities to ridicule points of views that differ from their own. I would add some other medical conditions to the list Marie mentioned such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromyalgia that have been dismissed in the same way as ME and Gulf War Syndrome.
>
> On a further topic, in yesterday's Times there was a horrendous article by Ian Mortimer on Richard III. A hatchet job worthy of Seward. This from a man whose ancestor committed, probably, the most heinous crime imaginable against Edward II, which is virtually never spoken of, except in hushed tones. And who Mortimer continually tries to exonerate. His latest excuse is to create a fantasy parallel existence whereby his ancestor did not brutally murder his king, who instead abdicated in favour of his son and went to live aboard thereby exonerated Roger Mortimer of his crimes. I don't think so.
> Sorry this is so long. Just needed to get a few things off my chest. It was The Times article that did it!
> Elaine
>
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> .
>
>
>
>

I've got the book.
 
I saw him at Liverpool Street station one day, getting on the Norwich train.  He did a series last year tying in with the Jubilee,  and a BBC series a few years ago about India which was interesting.

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:05
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
He was a cutie in the 70s. I still have his Trojan War series on dvd - he's so dynamic, smart and charming. Haven't seen him in years. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
>
>
> TIGHT jeans!
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 22:27
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>  
> The first historia in jeans?
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>
>  
>
> Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work.  He is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since the mid 70s.    He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.
>
> ________________________________
> .

Pamela...you have made some good points...I really had not thought of Weasle's soldiers perhaps being responsible for the grave digging and placing the body therein...It certainly could explain why the body was buried, in a grave too short, without a shroud and still with hands tied. Before you suggested this I had thought maybe it was done in a hurry because the body was decomposing and fast....it was August and maybe they had proper summers in those days unlike the tripe we get now..but I digest...Anyway after some thought I think your idea is probably more nearer the truth than my original thoughts...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
>
> Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
>
> My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
>
> If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
>
> I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
>
> Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>

Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> >  
> > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > >
> > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > >
> > > My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
> > >
> > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > >
> > > I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > >
> > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>[snip]
>
> My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
>
> If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
>
> I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
>
> Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
>
> Any thoughts?

Carol responds:

Possibly, the hands weren't tied. There was no trace of a mouldered rope in the grave, and I can't imagine the monks countenancing such treatment of an anointed king whom they buried in a place of honor (even though they did make the hole too small). Someone on the other R III forum suggested that perhaps the monks (or friars--you must be right based on the name) had placed Richard's hands in that position for modesty's sake since he didn't have a shroud. I like that idea--one last kind gesture by a friar who couldn't do anything else except pray for the soul of his dead king.

Carol

Probably as part of lashing him across the horse for the journey back to Leicester.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:



 
Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> >  
> > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > >
> > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > >
> > > My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
> > >
> > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > >
> > > I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > >
> > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

If that were the case, then why didn't the friars wrap him in a shroud or something?  I thought, from the pictures of the skeleton in situ that both hands where together over or near the right hip, rather than in the traditional place of modesty.  


________________________________



Carol responds:

Possibly, the hands weren't tied. There was no trace of a mouldered rope in the grave, and I can't imagine the monks countenancing such treatment of an anointed king whom they buried in a place of honor (even though they did make the hole too small). Someone on the other R III forum suggested that perhaps the monks (or friars--you must be right based on the name) had placed Richard's hands in that position for modesty's sake since he didn't have a shroud. I like that idea--one last kind gesture by a friar who couldn't do anything else except pray for the soul of his dead king.

Carol

The modesty angle didn't occur to me. I'll check out the photos again. If that's the case, I can go back to my fantasy of Richard not suffering...Maire.

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> If that were the case, then why didn't the friars wrap him in a shroud or something?  I thought, from the pictures of the skeleton in situ that both hands where together over or near the right hip, rather than in the traditional place of modesty.  
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Possibly, the hands weren't tied. There was no trace of a mouldered rope in the grave, and I can't imagine the monks countenancing such treatment of an anointed king whom they buried in a place of honor (even though they did make the hole too small). Someone on the other R III forum suggested that perhaps the monks (or friars--you must be right based on the name) had placed Richard's hands in that position for modesty's sake since he didn't have a shroud. I like that idea--one last kind gesture by a friar who couldn't do anything else except pray for the soul of his dead king.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes...the hands were definitely onto one side and together....If they had been placed at first for modesty...which of course could have indeed happened...and fell to one side when Richard was placed in the grave I would have thought that such a movement would have separated them...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> If that were the case, then why didn't the friars wrap him in a shroud or something?  I thought, from the pictures of the skeleton in situ that both hands where together over or near the right hip, rather than in the traditional place of modesty.  
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Possibly, the hands weren't tied. There was no trace of a mouldered rope in the grave, and I can't imagine the monks countenancing such treatment of an anointed king whom they buried in a place of honor (even though they did make the hole too small). Someone on the other R III forum suggested that perhaps the monks (or friars--you must be right based on the name) had placed Richard's hands in that position for modesty's sake since he didn't have a shroud. I like that idea--one last kind gesture by a friar who couldn't do anything else except pray for the soul of his dead king.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:
>
> I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.

Carol responds:

Interesting theory. What is the Newark?

Carol

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.

Carol responds:

The tied hands are only speculation. I prefer the modesty theory myself.

Carol

Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been employed.

FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.

He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting furously.
A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the blow landed too high.

At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...

Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but other scenarios could well be just as likely...




________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Grave


 
Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> >  
> > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > >
> > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > >
> > > My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
> > >
> > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > >
> > > I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > >
> > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks Aidan...It does make tough reading and even if it did not happen in every detail as your scenario it is still horrific. Can I just add here....it has been written somewhere in a newspaper article that Phillipa behaved as if she was "the skeleton's widow"...implying she is slightly batty...but I think a good many people when surveying the bones of anyone let alone someone who, I think most Ricardians think of us a friend...and showing the proof of a terrible death..would in fact feel and act the same way as Phillipa. Of course there are professionals who see stuff like this everyday and become hardened to it...but the majority of us do not and I think it is a sad society that seeks to belittle someone who is moved to tears by the terrible death of someone even though it happened 500 years ago. Eileen

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been employed.
>
> FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
>
> He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting furously.
> A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the blow landed too high.
>
> At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...
>
> Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but other scenarios could well be just as likely...
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
>  
> Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > > >
> > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > >
> > > > My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
> > > >
> > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > >
> > > > I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

An excellent (and very balanced) article about the difficult path we walk with regard to perceptions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-h-word/2013/feb/06/history-heroes-richard-iii

And it underlines the fact that the Society is desperate for an academic historian spokesperson.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:32
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations


 
I've got the book.
 
I saw him at Liverpool Street station one day, getting on the Norwich train.  He did a series last year tying in with the Jubilee,  and a BBC series a few years ago about India which was interesting.

From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:05
Subject: Re: Reputations

 
He was a cutie in the 70s. I still have his Trojan War series on dvd - he's so dynamic, smart and charming. Haven't seen him in years. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
>
>
> TIGHT jeans!
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 22:27
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>  
> The first historia in jeans?
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>
>  
>
> Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work.  He is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since the mid 70s.    He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.
>
> ________________________________
> .

Yes no matter how it is envisaged it is a tough death. But to be honest no more horrific than common in battle at that time - and far worse is done today with all our modern 'conveniences' for delivery of sudden death.

It is, for me anyway, the other aspects, the murders of various people (which to me do not make sense and are not in character), and the dishonourable, (to Henry and his retinue, not to Richard), treatment of his dead body that are barbaric.

I totally agree with you about Philippa, all the time and effort she spent on this causes an emotional attachment. To be emotionally overcome at the sight of the remains of someone who has become -in a sense-  a member of the family, is perfectly understandable. Not content with portraying this amazing find, C4 had to cut, edit and twist things to portray the 'nutty' angle. I saw nothing nutty, I saw a lady surrounded by people who had (on their actions and reactions and 'hunchback' comments in the program) little or no empathy or understanding of the huge commitment in time, study and emotion behind Philippa's responses. To me they are the 'weirdo's'




________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Grave


 
Thanks Aidan...It does make tough reading and even if it did not happen in every detail as your scenario it is still horrific. Can I just add here....it has been written somewhere in a newspaper article that Phillipa behaved as if she was "the skeleton's widow"...implying she is slightly batty...but I think a good many people when surveying the bones of anyone let alone someone who, I think most Ricardians think of us a friend...and showing the proof of a terrible death..would in fact feel and act the same way as Phillipa. Of course there are professionals who see stuff like this everyday and become hardened to it...but the majority of us do not and I think it is a sad society that seeks to belittle someone who is moved to tears by the terrible death of someone even though it happened 500 years ago. Eileen

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been employed.
>
> FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
>
> He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting furously.
> A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the blow landed too high.
>
> At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...
>
> Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but other scenarios could well be just as likely...
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
>  
> Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too. àHowever, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands. àIt would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen. àThat's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly. àThere was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable. àHowever, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > > >
> > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed. àIt was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days. àWe now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains. àSo, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > >
> > > > My question is: àDid the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in? à
> > > >
> > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > >
> > > > I àimagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly. àIt was usual, also, to wash a body before burial. àGiven the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily. àThe rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I appreciate enormously everything that was done by the team from Leicester
University. I respect their expertise, hard work and scholarship. Richard
has been found and identified thanks to that expertise, hard work and
scholarship. That they maintained their objectivity during the course of the
work and the research is no more than should be expected (and appreciated)
of a team of researchers. A heartfelt "Thank you Leicester University" is
what we should be saying. They certainly don't deserve insults.

Karen

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Great post and SO true.  Let's not forget the media can destroy people if they so choose.
>  
> As for Mortiemr, I bought his book about Edward III at the same time as the Dan Jones one.  I think I'll have to say if I can send them both back unread. God knows if I do read them now, I won't believe a word in either of them.

Carol responds:

It's funny; I wondered a while back if Ian Mortimer was descended from the Roger Mortimer accused of arranging the killing of Edward II and was out to defend his ancestor. I suppose it's rather like an author with the surname Stanley writing a book on Richard III. Just idly speculating. I haven't read Mortimer's book and would unfortunately be unable to tell fact from fiction on any monarch predating the Yorkist era.

Carol

Eileen wrote:
>
> Yes...the hands were definitely onto one side and together....If they had been placed at first for modesty...which of course could have indeed happened...and fell to one side when Richard was placed in the grave I would have thought that such a movement would have separated them...Eileen

Carol responds:

Sigh! There goes my last shred of comfort. I've always disliked Henry Tudor. Now it's difficult not to hate him. If only the friars had provided a shroud and untied the king's hands! At least, they buried him in the choir, a place of honor. Okay, I'll hold onto that thought as my last shred of comfort.

Carol

I totally agree, Eileen. Some of the comments elsewhere have disgusted me, to tell you the truth.

Last night I left another online history group that I have been a member of for a good while now because one particular individual was winding me up so badly that I was afraid of what I might post. I'm a bit ashamed not to have had more self control in the cold light of day but I'm glad that I didn't respond. The level of real animosity towards Richard was astounding - it seemed personal. And there was palpable glee that the traditional view of Richard has apparently been "vindicated" by the finds and the analysis.

These people find the Society and anyone emotionally involved with Richard easy targets, I'm afraid.

As Marie said last night some of it is definitely misogyny, even from the women. For that very reason I would defend Dr Appleby - even in this day and age women have to be very careful not to appear emotional in work situations for fear of being labelled incompetent and she must have been very aware that she was being filmed.

I am surprised still by my own emotional response to the documentary. I honestly didn't think that I would feel like that, but I don't see being emotionally connected as a negative. If I was a professional I suppose that I would be much more wary as to how I was being perceived.

When I was sounding off a while ago about some inaccuracy about Richard that I had read, my daughter said to me; "It was so long ago. Why does it matter to you?" I had to say that I don't know why it matters so much.

Of course, in the great scheme of things the truth always matters. But I can never explain why it matters to me personally; I only know that it really, really does.



--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Thanks Aidan...It does make tough reading and even if it did not happen in every detail as your scenario it is still horrific. Can I just add here....it has been written somewhere in a newspaper article that Phillipa behaved as if she was "the skeleton's widow"...implying she is slightly batty...but I think a good many people when surveying the bones of anyone let alone someone who, I think most Ricardians think of us a friend...and showing the proof of a terrible death..would in fact feel and act the same way as Phillipa. Of course there are professionals who see stuff like this everyday and become hardened to it...but the majority of us do not and I think it is a sad society that seeks to belittle someone who is moved to tears by the terrible death of someone even though it happened 500 years ago. Eileen
>
>
> >
>

ROFLMAO, Mcjohn! You’ve got Michael Wood’s accent down to a “T.” Where is
that accent from, I wonder?



Looking at Farnaby (name?) in the C4 documentary, and his fluffy, curly hair
– maybe he’s trying to emulate MW – sort of a poor man’s version.



I loved it when, at the end of the program, he proclaimed “I am a
Ricardian!” Who would’a thunk it??!!



Loyaulte me lie,





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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:05 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Reputations





An entire generation of history geeks went melty-eyed watching him stand on
the deck of a ship, declaiming, "Paris and Helen stopped at this island,
where, Homer sayze, 'We lay a night in one another's arms.""

I appreciated the geniality, the earnestness, and the jeans, but I gotta
tell ya, the missus and I still intone, "Homer sayze" to one another
occasionally, and it always cracks us up.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> The first historia in jeans?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>
> Â
>
> Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work. He
is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since
the mid 70s.   He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.

Aidan...your reply....we are both singing from the same songsheet...:0)


> I totally agree with you about Philippa, all the time and effort she spent on this causes an emotional attachment. To be emotionally overcome at the sight of the remains of someone who has become -in a sense-  a member of the family, is perfectly understandable. Not content with portraying this amazing find, C4 had to cut, edit and twist things to portray the 'nutty' angle. I saw nothing nutty, I saw a lady surrounded by people who had (on their actions and reactions and 'hunchback' comments in the program) little or no empathy or understanding of the huge commitment in time, study and emotion behind Philippa's responses. To me they are the 'weirdo's'
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 10:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
>  
> Thanks Aidan...It does make tough reading and even if it did not happen in every detail as your scenario it is still horrific. Can I just add here....it has been written somewhere in a newspaper article that Phillipa behaved as if she was "the skeleton's widow"...implying she is slightly batty...but I think a good many people when surveying the bones of anyone let alone someone who, I think most Ricardians think of us a friend...and showing the proof of a terrible death..would in fact feel and act the same way as Phillipa. Of course there are professionals who see stuff like this everyday and become hardened to it...but the majority of us do not and I think it is a sad society that seeks to belittle someone who is moved to tears by the terrible death of someone even though it happened 500 years ago. Eileen
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been employed.
> >
> > FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
> >
> > He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting furously.
> > A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> > His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the blow landed too high.
> >
> > At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> > As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...
> >
> > Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but other scenarios could well be just as likely...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
> >
> >
> >  
> > Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > > > >
> > > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
> > > > >
> > > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > > >
> > > > > I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It was another religious foundation in Leicester - the name means the New Work. I can't recall the details but an early source says his body was displayed there, and in the documentary they seemed to think that was the case, and that it was more deliberate humiliation as the Newark had Lancastrian credentials.

I'm wondering when the funeral would have taken place. At that period the normal thing was for Placebo and Dirige to be sung on the evening before burial, and then a Requiem mass on the day itself. With a body not even shrouded I am wondering what on earth was done in Richard's case.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Interesting theory. What is the Newark?
>
> Carol
>

What puzzles me is that they can tell us definitively that there was never a shroud, but are able to infer a rope around the wrists even though there are no physical remains of one.
Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been employed.
>
> FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
>
> He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting furously.
> A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the blow landed too high.
>
> At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...
>
> Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but other scenarios could well be just as likely...
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
>  
> Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > > >
> > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > >
> > > > My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  
> > > >
> > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > >
> > > > I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
.
.
.
> My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in?  

Weds writes jn sheer speculation:

I think the friars likely dug the grave, if for no other reason H7 and his soldiers would never have thought to offer to help. Interesting that H7 was still in town two days later. I thought he'd have shot off to London with his mummy to see what spoils they'd won.

From the too-small size of the grave, I'm thinking they dug it, then brought in his body and discovered it was too small only after they'd put him in. No one wanted to pick him back up and dig deeper, so they just made it work.

> If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.

I'm sorry to be indelicate, but it may well be that the rope was already imbedded in the body's swollen wrists.

> I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.

I think the probable state of the body made the friars hurry. Delaying for any reason would only have made things worse.

~Weds

Marie

I think that was inferred from the unusual position of the hands.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:42:15 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's Grave






What puzzles me is that they can tell us definitively that there was never a
shroud, but are able to infer a rope around the wrists even though there are
no physical remains of one.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down
over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been
employed.
>
> FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
>
> He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their
mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was
srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his
helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting
furously.
> A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that
did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to
behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the
blow landed too high.
>
> At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it
to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the
Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one
they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy
prevents me stating it as a probability...
>
> Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but
other scenarios could well be just as likely...
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
> Â
> Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been
still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows
were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied
after death...Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm
assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why
they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to
do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have
carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks
had nothing to do with that part.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried
at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had
sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There
was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud
either, which I found surprising.
> > > >
> > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and
asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had
been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep
enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no
trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > >
> > > > My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's
soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in? ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the
burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > >
> > > > I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the
friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to
lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.
 Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering,
this is extremely unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their
church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not
an honourable burial.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

If my theory that soldiers put Richard into the grave just as he was is correct, I expect the friars would have performed the required religious offices once the soldiers had left.  There need be no one else present.


________________________________
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


It was another religious foundation in Leicester - the name means the New Work. I can't recall the details but an early source says his body was displayed there, and in the documentary they seemed to think that was the case, and that it was more deliberate humiliation as the Newark had Lancastrian credentials.

I'm wondering when the funeral would have taken place. At that period the normal thing was for Placebo and Dirige to be sung on the evening before burial, and then a Requiem mass on the day itself. With a body not even shrouded I am wondering what on earth was done in Richard's case.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Interesting theory. What is the Newark?
>
> Carol
>

I thought that as well. The only thing I can think of, is that the rope would have been a courser size and fiber, while a shroud would presumably been more fragile or flimsy. But I did ask if any fibers had been found at all....

On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



What puzzles me is that they can tell us definitively that there was never a shroud, but are able to infer a rope around the wrists even though there are no physical remains of one.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been employed.
>
> FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
>
> He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting furously.
> A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the blow landed too high.
>
> At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...
>
> Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but other scenarios could well be just as likely...
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
> ý
> Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too. ýýý However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands. ýýý It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen. ýýý That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ýýý
> > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly. ýýý There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable. ýýý However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > > >
> > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed. ýýý It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days. ýýý We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains. ýýý So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > >
> > > > My question is: ýýý Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in? ýýý
> > > >
> > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > >
> > > > I ýýý imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly. ýýý It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial. ýýý Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily. ýýý The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Aidan Donnelly wrote:
[snip]
> As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...

Carol responds:

Please, let's not put that idea into circulation. I saw it suggested online and felt that the best response was not to perpetuate it by responding. The scientists, who had no interest in defending Richard's reputation and could determine the angle of the dagger thrust, made clear that the wound was to the buttock.

Carol

Aidan, Iwas thinking the same about the stab at the bottom....... But it is too terrible and I am deliberately trying not to think about it......

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...> wrote:

> Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been employed.
>
> FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
>
> He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting furously.
> A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the blow landed too high.
>
> At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...
>
> Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but other scenarios could well be just as likely...
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
>
> Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too. Â However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands. Â It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen. Â That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly. Â There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable. Â However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > > >
> > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed. Â It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days. Â We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains. Â So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > >
> > > > My question is: Â Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in? Â
> > > >
> > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > >
> > > > I Â imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly. Â It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial. Â Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily. Â The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

He's from Manchester.  It's interesting you said that because he doesn't actually have a Northern accent  really but obviously something slips through occasionally ("sayze" she who grew up in the Midlands)

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 16:27
Subject: RE: Re: Reputations

 
ROFLMAO, Mcjohn! You've got Michael Wood's accent down to a T. Where is
that accent from, I wonder?

Looking at Farnaby (name?) in the C4 documentary, and his fluffy, curly hair
 maybe he's trying to emulate MW  sort of a poor man's version.

I loved it when, at the end of the program, he proclaimed I am a
Ricardian! Who would'a thunk it??!!

Loyaulte me lie,

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:05 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Reputations

An entire generation of history geeks went melty-eyed watching him stand on
the deck of a ship, declaiming, "Paris and Helen stopped at this island,
where, Homer sayze, 'We lay a night in one another's arms.""

I appreciated the geniality, the earnestness, and the jeans, but I gotta
tell ya, the missus and I still intone, "Homer sayze" to one another
occasionally, and it always cracks us up.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> The first historia in jeans?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
"
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>
> Â
>
> Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work. He
is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since
the mid 70s.   He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.

Please excuse an old soldier who has seen and heard too much nasty stuff. Let's just accept it was a dagger thrust in the rear as they said, that's disgusting enough


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Grave


 
Aidan, Iwas thinking the same about the stab at the bottom....... But it is too terrible and I am deliberately trying not to think about it......

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...> wrote:

> Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been employed.
>
> FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
>
> He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting furously.
> A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the blow landed too high.
>
> At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...
>
> Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but other scenarios could well be just as likely...
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
>
> Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too. Â However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands. Â It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen. Â That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly. Â There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable. Â However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > > >
> > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed. Â It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days. Â We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains. Â So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > >
> > > > My question is: Â Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in? Â
> > > >
> > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > >
> > > > I Â imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly. Â It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial. Â Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily. Â The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Carol, I know how terrible that sounds but it is a speculation and we are looking at the situation from various angles. Trying to make sense of the horrible things done to him...... By hiding from the tragedy of it will not make it go away. We love him as much as you do and even thinking about it making me want to burst into tears.....Hugs but the possibility cannot be truly denied..

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:54 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> [snip]
> > As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Please, let's not put that idea into circulation. I saw it suggested online and felt that the best response was not to perpetuate it by responding. The scientists, who had no interest in defending Richard's reputation and could determine the angle of the dagger thrust, made clear that the wound was to the buttock.
>
> Carol
>
>

He went to school in Manchester. The Grammar school claim him as a 'famous old boy'

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> ROFLMAO, Mcjohn! You've got Michael Wood's accent down to a "T." Where is
> that accent from, I wonder?
>
>
>
> Looking at Farnaby (name?) in the C4 documentary, and his fluffy, curly hair
> – maybe he's trying to emulate MW – sort of a poor man's version.
>
>
>
> I loved it when, at the end of the program, he proclaimed "I am a
> Ricardian!" Who would'a thunk it??!!
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:05 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Reputations
>
>
>
>
>
> An entire generation of history geeks went melty-eyed watching him stand on
> the deck of a ship, declaiming, "Paris and Helen stopped at this island,
> where, Homer sayze, 'We lay a night in one another's arms.""
>
> I appreciated the geniality, the earnestness, and the jeans, but I gotta
> tell ya, the missus and I still intone, "Homer sayze" to one another
> occasionally, and it always cracks us up.
>
> --- In
> , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > The first historia in jeans?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams
> > To: "
> "
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
> > Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work. He
> is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since
> the mid 70s.   He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Would the funeral/mass have been carried out in secrecy because of H7? Or would they have had to ask his permission to have a funeral?

Would he have dared to explicitly deny Richard a funeral? Because I'm thinking if he could have, he would have.


--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
.
.
.
> I'm wondering when the funeral would have taken place. At that period the normal thing was for Placebo and Dirige to be sung on the evening before burial, and then a Requiem mass on the day itself. With a body not even shrouded I am wondering what on earth was done in Richard's case.
> Marie

I was able to watch the entire one our and fourteen minute video, and it was wonderful. I think you have to put this into perspective - these were bitter rivals, in close quarters, and in terrible times. It would be that one final kick to the ribs we see now when ruffians pick on somebody.....only so much more horrible.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Grave



Aidan, Iwas thinking the same about the stab at the bottom....... But it is too terrible and I am deliberately trying not to think about it......

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...<mailto:aidan.donnelly%40ymail.com>> wrote:

> Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been employed.
>
> FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
>
> He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting furously.
> A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the blow landed too high.
>
> At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy prevents me stating it as a probability...
>
> Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but other scenarios could well be just as likely...
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
>
> Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied after death...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too. Â However, I wonder why they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands. Â It would seem a simple thing to do, yet it didn't happen. Â That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks had nothing to do with that part.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly. Â There was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable. Â However, there was no shroud either, which I found surprising.
> > > >
> > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and asked to bury his body and H7 agreed. Â It was a hot August and the body had been displayed for two days. Â We now know that there were many injuries deep enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no trace now remains. Â So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > >
> > > > My question is: Â Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in? Â
> > > >
> > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > >
> > > > I Â imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to lay him in it properly. Â It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial. Â Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering, this is extremely unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their church, where prayers were offered daily. Â The rest of it, however, was not an honourable burial.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

I LOVED that final sentence!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Reputations



He's from Manchester. It's interesting you said that because he doesn't actually have a Northern accent really but obviously something slips through occasionally ("sayze" she who grew up in the Midlands)

From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 16:27
Subject: RE: Re: Reputations


ROFLMAO, Mcjohn! You've got Michael Wood's accent down to a "T." Where is
that accent from, I wonder?

Looking at Farnaby (name?) in the C4 documentary, and his fluffy, curly hair
- maybe he's trying to emulate MW - sort of a poor man's version.

I loved it when, at the end of the program, he proclaimed "I am a
Ricardian!" Who would'a thunk it??!!

Loyaulte me lie,

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:05 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Reputations

An entire generation of history geeks went melty-eyed watching him stand on
the deck of a ship, declaiming, "Paris and Helen stopped at this island,
where, Homer sayze, 'We lay a night in one another's arms.""

I appreciated the geniality, the earnestness, and the jeans, but I gotta
tell ya, the missus and I still intone, "Homer sayze" to one another
occasionally, and it always cracks us up.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> The first historia in jeans?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
"
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 21:00
> Subject: Re: Re: Reputations
>
>
> Â
>
> Michael Wood is a noted British historian who does a lot of tv work. He
is about 60, very attactive and many of us have been swooning over him since
the mid 70s.   He is also - more importantly - not anti-Richard.

deMontfort University, where I studied, had a building called the Newarke.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Grave



It was another religious foundation in Leicester - the name means the New Work. I can't recall the details but an early source says his body was displayed there, and in the documentary they seemed to think that was the case, and that it was more deliberate humiliation as the Newark had Lancastrian credentials.

I'm wondering when the funeral would have taken place. At that period the normal thing was for Placebo and Dirige to be sung on the evening before burial, and then a Requiem mass on the day itself. With a body not even shrouded I am wondering what on earth was done in Richard's case.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Interesting theory. What is the Newark?
>
> Carol
>

Karen,

You've missed my point. Of course that was why it was inferred, but read my post again. If we can have a rope that has totally disappeared, why not a shroud?

Marie

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> I think that was inferred from the unusual position of the hands.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:42:15 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What puzzles me is that they can tell us definitively that there was never a
> shroud, but are able to infer a rope around the wrists even though there are
> no physical remains of one.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, his hands were most likely tied so that he could be thrown face down
> over the horse - possibly a rope from his hands to his feet could also have been
> employed.
> >
> > FWIW my 'take' on the wounds suggested - to me anyway - a sequence of events.
> >
> > He was unhorsed but still fighting, others of his household offered him their
> mounts but he refused them. Pressed closely but still fighting a poleaxe was
> srtuck into his hellmet, causing the small hole in his skull and taking his
> helmet off. Bleeding from the wound but not disabled he continues fighting
> furously.
> > A sweeping blow, possible a battle axe or halberd slices the shallow cut that
> did not penetrate his skull, but does stun himmomentarily at least.
> > His arms are grabbed and he is forced to his knees, and a man attempts to
> behead him with a halberd, but Richard still struggling as hard as he could, the
> blow landed too high.
> >
> > At which point a noble or nobles claim the body as they do need to display it
> to show he is dead, his armour is stripped off him - possibly given to the
> Halberd wielder which would make his fortune.
> > As for the pelvic wound I have a different possibility for that than the one
> they mentioned, not an uncommon way of dishonouring a dead enemy, but delicacy
> prevents me stating it as a probability...
> >
> > Of curse that's just my interpretation of the action based on the wounds, but
> other scenarios could well be just as likely...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Grave
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Ive had the most awful thought....I hope I am wrong..could Richard have been
> still alive when his hands were tied and perhaps kneeling when those death blows
> were dealt...Trying to think of a reason why his hands would have been tied
> after death...Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone explain why his hands were tied in the first place? I'm
> assuming it was done after he was dead. I hope so, anyway. Maire
> > >
> > > --- In
> , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes Marie, I considered that possibility too.  However, I wonder why
> they didn't use a shroud or untie his hands.  It would seem a simple thing to
> do, yet it didn't happen.  That's why I thought perhaps soldiers might have
> carried him to Greyfriars and put him in the hole just as he was and the monks
> had nothing to do with that part.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > I wonder, if Richard was actually displayed at the Newark and then buried
> at the Greyfriars, whether the monks had to dig the hole before seeing the body.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is now apparent that Richard was buried in a grave cut which had
> sloping sides and was too small for his body to be laid out properly.  There
> was no coffin, which is perhaps understandable.  However, there was no shroud
> either, which I found surprising.
> > > > >
> > > > > Contemporary sources indicate that the Grey Friars went to the King and
> asked to bury his body and H7 agreed.  It was a hot August and the body had
> been displayed for two days.  We now know that there were many injuries deep
> enough to damage bone, but there were probably other flesh wounds of which no
> trace now remains.  So, burial was obviously urgent.
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is:  Did the friars dig the grave or did some of Henry's
> soldiers bring the body to Greyfriars, dig a hole and just tip him in? ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > If it was soldiers, it may account for the disrespectful aspects of the
> burial - especially as it appears Richard's hands were still tied.
> > > > >
> > > > > I  imagine that if the burial was physically carried out by the
> friars, then they would have untied him, used a shroud and taken the trouble to
> lay him in it properly.  It was usual, also, to wash a body before burial.
>  Given the placement of the body, the bound hands and lack of a covering,
> this is extremely unlikely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Presumably the friars chose the place - a place of honour in their
> church, where prayers were offered daily.  The rest of it, however, was not
> an honourable burial.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>