Henry Tudor Society

https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
 
 
TI just found this.  The FB page was created this month.  More jumping on the bandwagon?  Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much. 
 
I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire Tudor.  Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all.  I often think they are just being contrary.

Holy cow! They went and did it!!!!
I was just bragging to my husband that H7 has no society, group of fb page!

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

On Feb 9, 2013, at 3:42 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
>
>
> TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on the bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
>
> I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire Tudor. Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they are just being contrary.
>
>
>
>

Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
Paul

On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
>
>
> TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on the bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
>
> I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire Tudor. Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they are just being contrary.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
nutters.

Karen

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society






Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
Paul

On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
>
>
> TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on the
bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
>
> I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire Tudor.
Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they are
just being contrary.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we? That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> nutters.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> Paul
>
> On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> >
> >
> > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on the
> bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> >
> > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire Tudor.
> Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they are
> just being contrary.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maire

There's nothing funny about trolling.

Karen

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society






My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> nutters.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> Paul
>
> On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> >
> >
> > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on
the
> bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> >
> > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire Tudor.
> Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they are
> just being contrary.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

As I pointed out in a reply to Karen, most of us are simply letting off steam on here, not being rude on there.  The comments here are making me laugh and frankly make me far less likely to put a  rude post on a Tudor page. (I have asked however if HT would approve of a non-profit organisation in his name. )
 
I'd also rather people thought me a Ricardian nutter than a Tudor apologist.     
 
Liz


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 12:18
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

 
My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we? That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> nutters.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> Paul
>
> On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> >
> >
> > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on the
> bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> >
> > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire Tudor.
> Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they are
> just being contrary.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> There's nothing funny about trolling.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
>
> --- In
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > nutters.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > >
> > >
> > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on
> the
> > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > >
> > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire Tudor.
> > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they are
> > just being contrary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely! The comments last night on this forum were very funny. Maybe we all need to lighten up. Maire.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> As I pointed out in a reply to Karen, most of us are simply letting off steam on here, not being rude on there.  The comments here are making me laugh and frankly make me far less likely to put a  rude post on a Tudor page. (I have asked however if HT would approve of a non-profit organisation in his name. )
>  
> I'd also rather people thought me a Ricardian nutter than a Tudor apologist.     
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 12:18
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>  
> My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we? That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > nutters.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > >
> > >
> > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on the
> > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > >
> > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire Tudor.
> > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they are
> > just being contrary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.

I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.

Karen

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society






When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> There's nothing funny about trolling.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > nutters.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > >
> > >
> > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on
> the
> > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > >
> > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
Tudor.
> > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
are
> > just being contrary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends." Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery. Maire.
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
>
> I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
>
> --- In
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> >
> > --- In
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > nutters.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on
> > the
> > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > >
> > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> Tudor.
> > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
> are
> > > just being contrary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen,
 
I'd be interested  to know just "why" on earth they admire him.  I remember first reading about him when doing O level history  (we did nothing about Richard of course) and from that day to this (40 years), can't for the life of me find anything to like or admire in the man.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Liz
 
 
 


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 13:02
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

 
Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.

I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.

Karen

From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> There's nothing funny about trolling.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > nutters.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > >
> > >
> > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on
> the
> > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > >
> > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
Tudor.
> > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
are
> > just being contrary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well you'd hope so.  What annoys me is it's okay for them to trash Richard - there are plenty of nasty comments on the Society FB page.
 
 


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 13:27
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

 

Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends." Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
>
> I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > nutters.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on
> > the
> > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > >
> > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> Tudor.
> > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
> are
> > > just being contrary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Liz

I think there's a lot of people would ask us the same question.

Karen

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:34:07 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society






Karen,

I'd be interested to know just "why" on earth they admire him. I remember
first reading about him when doing O level history (we did nothing about
Richard of course) and from that day to this (40 years), can't for the life
of me find anything to like or admire in the man.








Liz




________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 13:02
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society


Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.

I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.

Karen

From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> There's nothing funny about trolling.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > nutters.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > >
> > >
> > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on
> the
> > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > >
> > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
Tudor.
> > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
are
> > just being contrary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maire

Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.

Karen

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society







Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
Maire.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
>
> I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
other
> > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
around
> > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
siege
> > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > nutters.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
on
> > the
> > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > >
> > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> Tudor.
> > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
> are
> > > just being contrary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them! Maire.

P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> Maire.
> --- In
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> >
> > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> >
> > --- In
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> other
> > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> around
> > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> siege
> > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > nutters.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> on
> > > the
> > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > Tudor.
> > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
> > are
> > > > just being contrary.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Um it's easy. 
 
Unjustly vilified
Brave soldier
Loyal brother
Good administrator
Introduced reforms that helped ordinary people
and of course - handsome (which always helpsall of which make him an interesting character and someone to admire. 
 
 
 
 
 
I think that only the most vehement anti Ricardian could try to deny  those things.  Plenty of people would of course say he wasn't vilified but the others are all factually documented and cannot be denied.
 
 
There's no contest.


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 13:54
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

 
Liz

I think there's a lot of people would ask us the same question.

Karen

From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:34:07 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

Karen,

I'd be interested to know just "why" on earth they admire him. I remember
first reading about him when doing O level history (we did nothing about
Richard of course) and from that day to this (40 years), can't for the life
of me find anything to like or admire in the man.








Liz




________________________________
From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 13:02
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.

I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.

Karen

From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> There's nothing funny about trolling.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > nutters.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > >
> > >
> > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on
> the
> > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > >
> > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
Tudor.
> > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
are
> > just being contrary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maire,
 
I've just had a good look at their page (and made a couple of (hopefully non inflammatory )comments.  What's all the fuss they're making on there about "Ricardian bullies" and trolling?  You  made a couple of silly (and funny to most of us) comments and a few other people posted on there some uncomplimentary things about Tudor, such as he was a usurper (indeed he was!) and may have killed the Princes (unfortunately I don't see how although I wouldn't put it past his mother).
 
Frankly the comments are NOTHING compared with those I've seen on our Society FB page and others.  It seems to me that there is a very raw nerve out there, probably because they all know the Tudor supporters have been vilifing Richard and us for decades and they think they're going to get it back.  Now I know two wrongs don't make a right and all that but if I feel like sticking up for him, I will.  I certainly have no intention of being rude about people posting on there but if they can't take a few silly jokes, stuff 'em.
 
 
 
 


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:05
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

 
I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them! Maire.

P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> >
> > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> other
> > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> around
> > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> siege
> > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > nutters.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> on
> > > the
> > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > Tudor.
> > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
> > are
> > > > just being contrary.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.

Karen

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society






I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
(got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
out for them! Maire.

P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
mm

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> Maire.
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> >
> > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> other
> > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> around
> > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
boot
> > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> siege
> > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
trolling
> > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > nutters.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
Society.
> > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> on
> > > the
> > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > Tudor.
> > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
they
> > are
> > > > just being contrary.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, while I certainly think we need to put this subject to bed - because we'll never agree - I just think that you have to distinguish between irrationality and humor. They are not at all related. I keep thinking of Emma Goldman's quip: If I can't dance at your revolution, I not coming.

P.S.: I am concerned about their claiming non-profit status. In America it takes years to get that designation. Seems Henry is still up to his thrifty tricks, lol!

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
> it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
> that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
> irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
> didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
> I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
> out for them! Maire.
>
> P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
> writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
> myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
> mm
>
> --- In
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > Maire.
> > --- In
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > other
> > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > around
> > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> boot
> > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > siege
> > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> trolling
> > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > nutters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> Society.
> > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > Tudor.
> > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> they
> > > are
> > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I couldn't believe they were squawking about "bullies" - considering their hero - a man who allowed an anointed king's body to be butchered - was a major bully, himself! I made two jokes and their world is collapsing. I love your comments there - much more considered than mine, lol! Maire.


--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Maire,
>  
> I've just had a good look at their page (and made a couple of (hopefully non inflammatory )comments.  What's all the fuss they're making on there about "Ricardian bullies" and trolling?  You  made a couple of silly (and funny to most of us) comments and a few other people posted on there some uncomplimentary things about Tudor, such as he was a usurper (indeed he was!) and may have killed the Princes (unfortunately I don't see how although I wouldn't put it past his mother).
>  
> Frankly the comments are NOTHING compared with those I've seen on our Society FB page and others.  It seems to me that there is a very raw nerve out there, probably because they all know the Tudor supporters have been vilifing Richard and us for decades and they think they're going to get it back.  Now I know two wrongs don't make a right and all that but if I feel like sticking up for him, I will.  I certainly have no intention of being rude about people posting on there but if they can't take a few silly jokes, stuff 'em.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:05
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>  
> I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them! Maire.
>
> P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > other
> > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > around
> > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > siege
> > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > nutters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > Tudor.
> > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
> > > are
> > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perhaps we shouldn't be so mean to him?

----- Original Message -----
From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society



Well, while I certainly think we need to put this subject to bed - because we'll never agree - I just think that you have to distinguish between irrationality and humor. They are not at all related. I keep thinking of Emma Goldman's quip: If I can't dance at your revolution, I not coming.

P.S.: I am concerned about their claiming non-profit status. In America it takes years to get that designation. Seems Henry is still up to his thrifty tricks, lol!

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
> it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
> that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
> irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
> didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
> I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
> out for them! Maire.
>
> P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
> writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
> myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
> mm
>
> --- In
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > Maire.
> > --- In
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > other
> > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > around
> > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> boot
> > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > siege
> > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> trolling
> > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > nutters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> Society.
> > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > Tudor.
> > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> they
> > > are
> > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I suspect that whoever (whomever?) has put that has done so because RIII Society has it and perhaps they don't really understand exactly what it means.
 
I've no idea who set the page up so could of course be totally wrong but it seems to me to just be a FB page rather than an actual Society in the way that RIII is.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:28
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

 
Well, while I certainly think we need to put this subject to bed - because we'll never agree - I just think that you have to distinguish between irrationality and humor. They are not at all related. I keep thinking of Emma Goldman's quip: If I can't dance at your revolution, I not coming.

P.S.: I am concerned about their claiming non-profit status. In America it takes years to get that designation. Seems Henry is still up to his thrifty tricks, lol!

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
> it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
> that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
> irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
> didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
> I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
> out for them! Maire.
>
> P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
> writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
> myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
> mm
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > other
> > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > around
> > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> boot
> > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > siege
> > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> trolling
> > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > nutters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> Society.
> > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > Tudor.
> > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> they
> > > are
> > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dear Karen -

I don't usually populate Facebook (although I have a page and friends, etc.)
but -



Looking at things right here - you said yesterday (I think) that you feel
there should be "balance" here on the RIII Society Forum. In the interest of
balance, there have been things said in the past that some members (i.e. me,
for one) felt hurt by. Unintentionally, my statements may have had the same
effect on other members. If so, I would sincerely apologize (for anything
that anyone might have taken as a personal attack). Almost invariably, I
think hurt feelings are an unintended consequence of things we've written.



Now, there is a FB page for Henry VII. As far as I have been able to gather
from the discussion here, Maire posted that Henry hid behind his French
troops to avoid the charge from Richard. There is at least some contemporary
evidence from an unbiased (I assume) observer, or at least, a soldier with
no agenda, not a supporter of Richard, to support the fact that this is
true. That is pretty mild, I would say, and is definitely not a personal
attack - on anyone besides Henry, that is. So - all in all, what justifies
the HVII Society "unfriending" Maire because of that really mild (and very
likely true) comment?



It appears to me that there is at least a double standard being applied
here. We on the Forum certainly do have a broad range of discussion on many
different topics, some of us agree, some of us don't, have different sides,
often, on different issues. Some things have been allowed here which
definitely do constitute personal attacks on the other members - which
should be verboten anywhere, any time, imho. But I haven't heard anything
about Maire's comments that would constitute a personal attack on the
members of their group, and it was fair comment, imho, on Henry. Many Tudor
historians/aficionados may not be "anti-Richard" per se, but in most cases
that I have seen, they have imbibed the conventional wisdom with their
mother's milk, seemingly, and are not about to stir things up. It's much
more comfortable if one plays it safe, and that is - "Richard was a usurper
who killed his nephews; therefore Henry was justified in killing him,
killing a whole lot of other people, and trying to pretend that Richard's
reign never took place." There has been an imbalance, and I do think the
Ricardians have had to be more dedicated, have had to persevere through
prejudice and condescension toward them. My #1 example - Philippa Langley! I
think it is only fair that the Henry VII Society FB should be as "balanced"
in its presentations and comments as this Forum is, and as the RIII Society
webpages and FB pages are, but I don't plan to hold my breath.



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 Karen Clark
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:23 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society





Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.

Karen

From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...
<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
(got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
out for them! Maire.

P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
mm

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my
"friends."
> Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's
bravery.
> Maire.
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook
page
> > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it
funny
> > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's
expense.
> > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or
making a
> > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward
to. I
> > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
view.
> > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> >
> > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
how
> > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in
the
> > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the
second
> > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
we?
> > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I
don't
> > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there
is no
> > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not
only
> > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does
any
> other
> > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
don't
> > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they
wander
> around
> > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
boot
> > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that
this
> siege
> > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
trolling
> > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > nutters.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
Society.
> > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > https://www.facebook.com/# <https://www.facebook.com/>
!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More
jumping
> on
> > > the
> > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too
much.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could
admire
> > Tudor.
> > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
they
> > are
> > > > just being contrary.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you - I save my ranting for here!
 
Liz


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:32
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

 
I couldn't believe they were squawking about "bullies" - considering their hero - a man who allowed an anointed king's body to be butchered - was a major bully, himself! I made two jokes and their world is collapsing. I love your comments there - much more considered than mine, lol! Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> Maire,
>  
> I've just had a good look at their page (and made a couple of (hopefully non inflammatory )comments.  What's all the fuss they're making on there about "Ricardian bullies" and trolling?  You  made a couple of silly (and funny to most of us) comments and a few other people posted on there some uncomplimentary things about Tudor, such as he was a usurper (indeed he was!) and may have killed the Princes (unfortunately I don't see how although I wouldn't put it past his mother).
>  
> Frankly the comments are NOTHING compared with those I've seen on our Society FB page and others.  It seems to me that there is a very raw nerve out there, probably because they all know the Tudor supporters have been vilifing Richard and us for decades and they think they're going to get it back.  Now I know two wrongs don't make a right and all that but if I feel like sticking up for him, I will.  I certainly have no intention of being rude about people posting on there but if they can't take a few silly jokes, stuff 'em.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:05
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>  
> I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them! Maire.
>
> P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > other
> > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > around
> > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > siege
> > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > nutters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > Tudor.
> > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
> > > are
> > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maire

Anyone who joins a group (anyone) for the sole purpose of making
inflammatory remarks is out of line. A lot of us, in various different
groups (and even on my Richard page) have found the same people coming in
simply to stir up trouble, usually without a firm basis of knowledge and
almost never prepared to give a source for their assertions. There is often
a strong reaction because we've seen it all before. Most of the people who
commented don't have Henry Tudor as their 'hero'. We're all interested in
history and, as I said, the history community on facebook doesn't generally
operate on an 'us' and 'them' basis. In my own group, I have Ricardians and
non-Ricardians; Lancastrians and Yorkists; people who like the Percies and
(of course) people who like the Nevills. There's one member who's
particularly fond of the Wydevilles and several who research and write about
the Tudors. There are published writers and re-enactors; people with years
of reading behind them and those who are relatively new to history. We're
all there because of our interest in the Wars of the Roses. We accept each
other's views and interests, though we don't always agree. Sometimes, we
make 'silly jokes'. But we know and respect each other, the right to make
jokes has been earned.

I don't think there's anything more I can say about this. Just maybe that we
should respect other people's interests as we'd like our own to be
respected.

Karen

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:32:11 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society






I couldn't believe they were squawking about "bullies" - considering their
hero - a man who allowed an anointed king's body to be butchered - was a
major bully, himself! I made two jokes and their world is collapsing. I
love your comments there - much more considered than mine, lol! Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams wrote:
>
> Maire,
> Â
> I've just had a good look at their page (and made a couple of (hopefully non
inflammatory )comments. What's all the fuss they're making on there about
"Ricardian bullies" and trolling?  You  made a couple of silly (and funny to
most of us) comments and a few other people posted on there some uncomplimentary
things about Tudor, such as he was a usurper (indeed he was!) and may have
killed the Princes (unfortunately I don't see how although I wouldn't put it
past his mother).
> Â
> Frankly the comments are NOTHING compared with those I've seen on our Society
FB page and others. It seems to me that there is a very raw nerve out there,
probably because they all know the Tudor supporters have been vilifing Richard
and us for decades and they think they're going to get it back. Now I know two
wrongs don't make a right and all that but if I feel like sticking up for him,Â
I will. I certainly have no intention of being rude about people posting on
there but if they can't take a few silly jokes, stuff 'em.
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:05
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
> Â
> I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
(got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't
post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the
only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them!
Maire.
>
> P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing
on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a
Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making
a
> > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to.
I
> > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
view.
> > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
how
> > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
we?
> > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is
no
> > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > other
> > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
don't
> > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > around
> > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
boot
> > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > siege
> > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
trolling
> > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > nutters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
Society.
> > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > Tudor.
> > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
they
> > > are
> > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes this is so true I for one am making a jack in the box with the outside covered in knights if you turn the handle a weasel pops out.
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 10, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> Perhaps we shouldn't be so mean to him?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 2:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
> Well, while I certainly think we need to put this subject to bed - because we'll never agree - I just think that you have to distinguish between irrationality and humor. They are not at all related. I keep thinking of Emma Goldman's quip: If I can't dance at your revolution, I not coming.
>
> P.S.: I am concerned about their claiming non-profit status. In America it takes years to get that designation. Seems Henry is still up to his thrifty tricks, lol!
>
> --- In , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
> > it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
> > that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
> > irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> > (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
> > didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
> > I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
> > out for them! Maire.
> >
> > P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
> > writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
> > myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
> > mm
> >
> > --- In
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > > Maire.
> > > --- In
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
> > > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
> > > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
> > > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > > >
> > > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
> > > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maire
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> > > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > > other
> > > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > > around
> > > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> > boot
> > > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > > siege
> > > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> > trolling
> > > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > > nutters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> > Society.
> > > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > > Tudor.
> > > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> > they
> > > > are
> > > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Good post Johanne.  Regarding the double standard, hasn't there been one for the last 500 years?  Even if Richard had been responsible for the death of the Princes, why is he supposed to behave better than any of the kings before or after him, many of whom bumped off far more people, including children?   Why for example is Richard "ruthless" (although of course in reality, he wasn't ruthless enough) when Henry Tudor was merely "ensuring his succession"? 
 
Personally I think Tudor historians "have" to be anti-Richard (if that's the right phrase) to a fair degree because if they acknowledge what Richard was really like,  it makes respect for Tudor somewhat untenable.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:54
Subject: RE: Henry Tudor Society

 
Dear Karen -

I don't usually populate Facebook (although I have a page and friends, etc.)
but -

Looking at things right here - you said yesterday (I think) that you feel
there should be "balance" here on the RIII Society Forum. In the interest of
balance, there have been things said in the past that some members (i.e. me,
for one) felt hurt by. Unintentionally, my statements may have had the same
effect on other members. If so, I would sincerely apologize (for anything
that anyone might have taken as a personal attack). Almost invariably, I
think hurt feelings are an unintended consequence of things we've written.

Now, there is a FB page for Henry VII. As far as I have been able to gather
from the discussion here, Maire posted that Henry hid behind his French
troops to avoid the charge from Richard. There is at least some contemporary
evidence from an unbiased (I assume) observer, or at least, a soldier with
no agenda, not a supporter of Richard, to support the fact that this is
true. That is pretty mild, I would say, and is definitely not a personal
attack - on anyone besides Henry, that is. So - all in all, what justifies
the HVII Society "unfriending" Maire because of that really mild (and very
likely true) comment?

It appears to me that there is at least a double standard being applied
here. We on the Forum certainly do have a broad range of discussion on many
different topics, some of us agree, some of us don't, have different sides,
often, on different issues. Some things have been allowed here which
definitely do constitute personal attacks on the other members - which
should be verboten anywhere, any time, imho. But I haven't heard anything
about Maire's comments that would constitute a personal attack on the
members of their group, and it was fair comment, imho, on Henry. Many Tudor
historians/aficionados may not be "anti-Richard" per se, but in most cases
that I have seen, they have imbibed the conventional wisdom with their
mother's milk, seemingly, and are not about to stir things up. It's much
more comfortable if one plays it safe, and that is - "Richard was a usurper
who killed his nephews; therefore Henry was justified in killing him,
killing a whole lot of other people, and trying to pretend that Richard's
reign never took place." There has been an imbalance, and I do think the
Ricardians have had to be more dedicated, have had to persevere through
prejudice and condescension toward them. My #1 example - Philippa Langley! I
think it is only fair that the Henry VII Society FB should be as "balanced"
in its presentations and comments as this Forum is, and as the RIII Society
webpages and FB pages are, but I don't plan to hold my breath.

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 Karen Clark
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:23 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.

Karen

From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com
>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
(got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
out for them! Maire.

P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
mm

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my
"friends."
> Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's
bravery.
> Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com


> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook
page
> > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it
funny
> > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's
expense.
> > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or
making a
> > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward
to. I
> > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
view.
> > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> >
> > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
how
> > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in
the
> > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the
second
> > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com


>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
we?
> > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I
don't
> > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com


>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there
is no
> > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not
only
> > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does
any
> other
> > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
don't
> > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they
wander
> around
> > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
boot
> > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that
this
> siege
> > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
trolling
> > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > nutters.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
Society.
> > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > https://www.facebook.com/# https://www.facebook.com/>
!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More
jumping
> on
> > > the
> > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too
much.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could
admire
> > Tudor.
> > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
they
> > are
> > > > just being contrary.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen: please, for the last time: I made a JOKE. I'm beginning to feel like I'm in 5th grade again when Sister Maria Virgo pulled me up to the front of the room for laughing at the word "bosom" during a reading of the poem "Trees." Maire.

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> Anyone who joins a group (anyone) for the sole purpose of making
> inflammatory remarks is out of line. A lot of us, in various different
> groups (and even on my Richard page) have found the same people coming in
> simply to stir up trouble, usually without a firm basis of knowledge and
> almost never prepared to give a source for their assertions. There is often
> a strong reaction because we've seen it all before. Most of the people who
> commented don't have Henry Tudor as their 'hero'. We're all interested in
> history and, as I said, the history community on facebook doesn't generally
> operate on an 'us' and 'them' basis. In my own group, I have Ricardians and
> non-Ricardians; Lancastrians and Yorkists; people who like the Percies and
> (of course) people who like the Nevills. There's one member who's
> particularly fond of the Wydevilles and several who research and write about
> the Tudors. There are published writers and re-enactors; people with years
> of reading behind them and those who are relatively new to history. We're
> all there because of our interest in the Wars of the Roses. We accept each
> other's views and interests, though we don't always agree. Sometimes, we
> make 'silly jokes'. But we know and respect each other, the right to make
> jokes has been earned.
>
> I don't think there's anything more I can say about this. Just maybe that we
> should respect other people's interests as we'd like our own to be
> respected.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:32:11 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I couldn't believe they were squawking about "bullies" - considering their
> hero - a man who allowed an anointed king's body to be butchered - was a
> major bully, himself! I made two jokes and their world is collapsing. I
> love your comments there - much more considered than mine, lol! Maire.
>
> --- In
> , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Maire,
> > Â
> > I've just had a good look at their page (and made a couple of (hopefully non
> inflammatory )comments. What's all the fuss they're making on there about
> "Ricardian bullies" and trolling?  You  made a couple of silly (and funny to
> most of us) comments and a few other people posted on there some uncomplimentary
> things about Tudor, such as he was a usurper (indeed he was!) and may have
> killed the Princes (unfortunately I don't see how although I wouldn't put it
> past his mother).
> > Â
> > Frankly the comments are NOTHING compared with those I've seen on our Society
> FB page and others. It seems to me that there is a very raw nerve out there,
> probably because they all know the Tudor supporters have been vilifing Richard
> and us for decades and they think they're going to get it back. Now I know two
> wrongs don't make a right and all that but if I feel like sticking up for him,Â
> I will. I certainly have no intention of being rude about people posting on
> there but if they can't take a few silly jokes, stuff 'em.
> > Â
> > Â
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mairemulholland
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:05
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> > Â
> > I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't
> post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the
> only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them!
> Maire.
> >
> > P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing
> on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a
> Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > > Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making
> a
> > > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to.
> I
> > > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
> view.
> > > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > > >
> > > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
> how
> > > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maire
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
> we?
> > > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is
> no
> > > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > > other
> > > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
> don't
> > > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > > around
> > > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> boot
> > > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > > siege
> > > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> trolling
> > > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > > nutters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> Society.
> > > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > > Tudor.
> > > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> they
> > > > are
> > > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne

There was a call for members of this forum to 'swamp' Tudor groups and 'get
the boot in'. It wasn't a call for us to join Tudor groups and present out
(various) points of view, with reference to sources.

I didn't call for 'balance' in this forum, I said I was looking for balance
in my view of Richard. People are entitled to hold whatever view of Richard
they want to. I'm not asking for anyone to change how they see him. People
who have facebook pages about Richard are entitled to be as balanced or
unbalanced as they wish. So do people who have facebook pages/groups about
Henry Tudor, Cesare Borgia, George III or Abraham Lincoln. The 'balance'
that I think you're talking about was related to a suggested source book, or
web archive, and that was more about innoculating such an idea from charges
of 'cherrypicking'.

It's the double standard that worries me, very much, but I think we see that
differently as well.

The comments left on the HFS page were deliberately provocative and,
obviously from the responses given, reinforced a negative view of
Ricardians. I don't want that for any of us.

As for personal attacks, I think some of them have been designed to get rid
of members who don't toe the line. Certainly, shouting at members {ALL CAPS)
and snide remarks about 'some people' wouldn't be tolerated on other forums
and shouldn't be tolerated here. Neither should rallying cries to 'swamp'
Tudor (or any other) groups on facebook. I fail to see how such a call can
possibly be defended.


Karen

I don't know the person who set up that page, but I think they're writing
(or have written) a book. I also don't know if the Henry Tudor Society is
'real'. I guess we'll find that out as time goes on.

Karen

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:54:18 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society






I suspect that whoever (whomever?) has put that has done so because RIII
Society has it and perhaps they don't really understand exactly what it
means.

I've no idea who set the page up so could of course be totally wrong but it
seems to me to just be a FB page rather than an actual Society in the way
that RIII is.

Liz

________________________________
From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...
<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:28
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society


Well, while I certainly think we need to put this subject to bed - because
we'll never agree - I just think that you have to distinguish between
irrationality and humor. They are not at all related. I keep thinking of
Emma Goldman's quip: If I can't dance at your revolution, I not coming.

P.S.: I am concerned about their claiming non-profit status. In America it
takes years to get that designation. Seems Henry is still up to his thrifty
tricks, lol!

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
> it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
> that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
> irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
> didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
> I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
> out for them! Maire.
>
> P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
> writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
> myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
> mm
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making
a
> > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to.
I
> > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
view.
> > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
how
> > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
we?
> > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is
no
> > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > other
> > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
don't
> > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > around
> > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> boot
> > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > siege
> > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> trolling
> > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > nutters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> Society.
> > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > Tudor.
> > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> they
> > > are
> > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well said. It's been my experience on this forum that, when a new member starts slinging the "murderin' usuperin' baby-killer" line, one or more of us here will step in and attempt to correct the misapprehension. We may do so with some heat--you do get tired of answering the same blasted questions over and over and over to the point of irritation--but our first impulse is to address the historical oversimplification and the misapprehension. It generally takes us a few exchanges to decide whether the inflammatory poster is trolling, and I've never seen a flamer get banned for one comment.

That's a bit different from Maire getting tossed off the HVII board for making one comment backed up by at least one historically valid source.

It occurs to me, though, that while most of us on this forum have spent years researching and are able to marshal major facts without having to look them up, perhaps the level of scholarship on a Henry Tudor site is less advanced. Maybe they answered with the nuclear option because they didn't have any other response readily available.

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Dear Karen -
>
> I don't usually populate Facebook (although I have a page and friends, etc.)
> but -
>
>
>
> Looking at things right here - you said yesterday (I think) that you feel
> there should be "balance" here on the RIII Society Forum. In the interest of
> balance, there have been things said in the past that some members (i.e. me,
> for one) felt hurt by. Unintentionally, my statements may have had the same
> effect on other members. If so, I would sincerely apologize (for anything
> that anyone might have taken as a personal attack). Almost invariably, I
> think hurt feelings are an unintended consequence of things we've written.
>
>
>
> Now, there is a FB page for Henry VII. As far as I have been able to gather
> from the discussion here, Maire posted that Henry hid behind his French
> troops to avoid the charge from Richard. There is at least some contemporary
> evidence from an unbiased (I assume) observer, or at least, a soldier with
> no agenda, not a supporter of Richard, to support the fact that this is
> true. That is pretty mild, I would say, and is definitely not a personal
> attack - on anyone besides Henry, that is. So - all in all, what justifies
> the HVII Society "unfriending" Maire because of that really mild (and very
> likely true) comment?
>
>
>
> It appears to me that there is at least a double standard being applied
> here. We on the Forum certainly do have a broad range of discussion on many
> different topics, some of us agree, some of us don't, have different sides,
> often, on different issues. Some things have been allowed here which
> definitely do constitute personal attacks on the other members - which
> should be verboten anywhere, any time, imho. But I haven't heard anything
> about Maire's comments that would constitute a personal attack on the
> members of their group, and it was fair comment, imho, on Henry. Many Tudor
> historians/aficionados may not be "anti-Richard" per se, but in most cases
> that I have seen, they have imbibed the conventional wisdom with their
> mother's milk, seemingly, and are not about to stir things up. It's much
> more comfortable if one plays it safe, and that is - "Richard was a usurper
> who killed his nephews; therefore Henry was justified in killing him,
> killing a whole lot of other people, and trying to pretend that Richard's
> reign never took place." There has been an imbalance, and I do think the
> Ricardians have had to be more dedicated, have had to persevere through
> prejudice and condescension toward them. My #1 example - Philippa Langley! I
> think it is only fair that the Henry VII Society FB should be as "balanced"
> in its presentations and comments as this Forum is, and as the RIII Society
> webpages and FB pages are, but I don't plan to hold my breath.
>
>
>
> 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 Karen Clark
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
> Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
> it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
> that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
> irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...
> >
> Reply-To:
> >
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
> To:
> >
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
> I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
> didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
> I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
> out for them! Maire.
>
> P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
> writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
> myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
> mm
>
> --- In
>
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my
> "friends."
> > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's
> bravery.
> > Maire.
> > --- In
>
>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook
> page
> > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it
> funny
> > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's
> expense.
> > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or
> making a
> > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward
> to. I
> > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
> view.
> > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
> how
> > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in
> the
> > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the
> second
> > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
>
>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
> we?
> > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I
> don't
> > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there
> is no
> > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not
> only
> > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does
> any
> > other
> > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
> don't
> > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they
> wander
> > around
> > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> boot
> > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that
> this
> > siege
> > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> trolling
> > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > nutters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> Society.
> > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#
> !/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More
> jumping
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too
> much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could
> admire
> > > Tudor.
> > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> they
> > > are
> > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen: you are misquoting me. I suggested - last night - that we swamp one facebook page - not all Tudor groups on the face of the earth, lol! I also did not say that I wanted them to get the boot in. That was my ironic remark about Ricardians lack of ruthlessness. Maire.
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Johanne
>
> There was a call for members of this forum to 'swamp' Tudor groups and 'get
> the boot in'. It wasn't a call for us to join Tudor groups and present out
> (various) points of view, with reference to sources.
>
> I didn't call for 'balance' in this forum, I said I was looking for balance
> in my view of Richard. People are entitled to hold whatever view of Richard
> they want to. I'm not asking for anyone to change how they see him. People
> who have facebook pages about Richard are entitled to be as balanced or
> unbalanced as they wish. So do people who have facebook pages/groups about
> Henry Tudor, Cesare Borgia, George III or Abraham Lincoln. The 'balance'
> that I think you're talking about was related to a suggested source book, or
> web archive, and that was more about innoculating such an idea from charges
> of 'cherrypicking'.
>
> It's the double standard that worries me, very much, but I think we see that
> differently as well.
>
> The comments left on the HFS page were deliberately provocative and,
> obviously from the responses given, reinforced a negative view of
> Ricardians. I don't want that for any of us.
>
> As for personal attacks, I think some of them have been designed to get rid
> of members who don't toe the line. Certainly, shouting at members {ALL CAPS)
> and snide remarks about 'some people' wouldn't be tolerated on other forums
> and shouldn't be tolerated here. Neither should rallying cries to 'swamp'
> Tudor (or any other) groups on facebook. I fail to see how such a call can
> possibly be defended.
>
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen,
 
I can't remember who made that comment but it obviously hasn't occurred to you that that was a joke as well - made probably because that's what the Anti-Ricardians do to us constantly.
 
Liz


________________________________

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 15:26
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

 
Johanne

There was a call for members of this forum to 'swamp' Tudor groups and 'get
the boot in'. It wasn't a call for us to join Tudor groups and present out
(various)

I made the remark. And, yes, I made it in jest. Talk about a tempest in a Tudor teapot! Maire.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Karen,
>  
> I can't remember who made that comment but it obviously hasn't occurred to you that that was a joke as well - made probably because that's what the Anti-Ricardians do to us constantly.
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Karen Clark
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 15:26
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>  
> Johanne
>
> There was a call for members of this forum to 'swamp' Tudor groups and 'get
> the boot in'. It wasn't a call for us to join Tudor groups and present out
> (various)
>
>
>

A site that does not allow 'opposing' views, such as Maire's observation, which we have a source for, that
Henry tried to hide behind a tree would be perfectly valid observations.
A reasonable and unbiased site such as you describe below would not (or should not)see it as anything other than information being added.

There is a difference from what Maire said there to 'trolling'which is essentially sourceless and baseless sneers, often including ad-hominem attacks on other contributors.

On this basis Maire was not trolling and the banning of her says much about the admins of the site.
If they will not allow for reasonable opposing positions and ban those posting them, then the site simply
becomes an 'echo chamber'

If 'Tudorians' appeared on here with reasonable arguments and engaged in useful discussion - checking sources given them
and giving sources for any position of theirs then I cannot see but that they would be welcome, and should be.

In the spirit of what you said below, I respectfully disagree that Maire did anything disrespectful or out of line.



________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society


 
Maire

Anyone who joins a group (anyone) for the sole purpose of making
inflammatory remarks is out of line. A lot of us, in various different
groups (and even on my Richard page) have found the same people coming in
simply to stir up trouble, usually without a firm basis of knowledge and
almost never prepared to give a source for their assertions. There is often
a strong reaction because we've seen it all before. Most of the people who
commented don't have Henry Tudor as their 'hero'. We're all interested in
history and, as I said, the history community on facebook doesn't generally
operate on an 'us' and 'them' basis. In my own group, I have Ricardians and
non-Ricardians; Lancastrians and Yorkists; people who like the Percies and
(of course) people who like the Nevills. There's one member who's
particularly fond of the Wydevilles and several who research and write about
the Tudors. There are published writers and re-enactors; people with years
of reading behind them and those who are relatively new to history. We're
all there because of our interest in the Wars of the Roses. We accept each
other's views and interests, though we don't always agree. Sometimes, we
make 'silly jokes'. But we know and respect each other, the right to make
jokes has been earned.

I don't think there's anything more I can say about this. Just maybe that we
should respect other people's interests as we'd like our own to be
respected.

Karen

From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:32:11 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

I couldn't believe they were squawking about "bullies" - considering their
hero - a man who allowed an anointed king's body to be butchered - was a
major bully, himself! I made two jokes and their world is collapsing. I
love your comments there - much more considered than mine, lol! Maire.

--- In
, liz williams wrote:
>
> Maire,
> Â
> I've just had a good look at their page (and made a couple of (hopefully non
inflammatory )comments. What's all the fuss they're making on there about
"Ricardian bullies" and trolling?  You  made a couple of silly (and funny to
most of us) comments and a few other people posted on there some uncomplimentary
things about Tudor, such as he was a usurper (indeed he was!) and may have
killed the Princes (unfortunately I don't see how although I wouldn't put it
past his mother).
> Â
> Frankly the comments are NOTHING compared with those I've seen on our Society
FB page and others. It seems to me that there is a very raw nerve out there,
probably because they all know the Tudor supporters have been vilifing Richard
and us for decades and they think they're going to get it back. Now I know two
wrongs don't make a right and all that but if I feel like sticking up for him,Â
I will. I certainly have no intention of being rude about people posting on
there but if they can't take a few silly jokes, stuff 'em.
> Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:

> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:05
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
> Â
> I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
(got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't
post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the
only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them!
Maire.
>
> P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing
on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a
Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire
> >
> > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making
a
> > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to.
I
> > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
view.
> > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
how
> > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
we?
> > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is
no
> > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > other
> > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
don't
> > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > around
> > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
boot
> > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > siege
> > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
trolling
> > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > nutters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
Society.
> > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > Tudor.
> > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
they
> > > are
> > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

That's what personally always bothered me- even if he killed the princes,
that's... kind of it, aside from the Rivers, Vaughn, and Hastings executions.
And if he did, the potential motive of trying to avert the WOTR flaring up again
kind of shakes even the princes' deaths down to having to weigh the good of the
country over the continuation of two innocent and very young lives. This, in
turn, makes the aforementioned three executions the only provable unweighted
marks against him, and even there it's the lack of judicial process that makes
them striking, rather than the executions themselves.

I think what it comes down to it, there's a lot of classism in the historical
condemnation of Richard. Anything that supposedly made him "tyrannical" was
directed on a small scale against other members of the upper classes, while he
took excellent care of the common people he ruled over. That's something that
never seems to be mentioned, but it's a really bizarre inversion of the old
maxim that a single murder is a tragedy but a million deaths are a statistic.
Who cares that a member of the aristocracy never directed his already only
shakily reputed criminal career at the common man? The man was a menace, right?

Ugh.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Sun, February 10, 2013 10:14:23 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society


Good post Johanne. Regarding the double standard, hasn't there been one for the
last 500 years? Even if Richard had been responsible for the death of the
Princes, why is he supposed to behave better than any of the kings before or
after him, many of whom bumped off far more people, including children? Why
for example is Richard "ruthless" (although of course in reality, he wasn't
ruthless enough) when Henry Tudor was merely "ensuring his succession"?


Personally I think Tudor historians "have" to be anti-Richard (if that's the
right phrase) to a fair degree because if they acknowledge what Richard was
really like, it makes respect for Tudor somewhat untenable.


Liz

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:54
Subject: RE: Henry Tudor Society


Dear Karen -

I don't usually populate Facebook (although I have a page and friends, etc.)
but -

Looking at things right here - you said yesterday (I think) that you feel
there should be "balance" here on the RIII Society Forum. In the interest of
balance, there have been things said in the past that some members (i.e. me,
for one) felt hurt by. Unintentionally, my statements may have had the same
effect on other members. If so, I would sincerely apologize (for anything
that anyone might have taken as a personal attack). Almost invariably, I
think hurt feelings are an unintended consequence of things we've written.

Now, there is a FB page for Henry VII. As far as I have been able to gather
from the discussion here, Maire posted that Henry hid behind his French
troops to avoid the charge from Richard. There is at least some contemporary
evidence from an unbiased (I assume) observer, or at least, a soldier with
no agenda, not a supporter of Richard, to support the fact that this is
true. That is pretty mild, I would say, and is definitely not a personal
attack - on anyone besides Henry, that is. So - all in all, what justifies
the HVII Society "unfriending" Maire because of that really mild (and very
likely true) comment?

It appears to me that there is at least a double standard being applied
here. We on the Forum certainly do have a broad range of discussion on many
different topics, some of us agree, some of us don't, have different sides,
often, on different issues. Some things have been allowed here which
definitely do constitute personal attacks on the other members - which
should be verboten anywhere, any time, imho. But I haven't heard anything
about Maire's comments that would constitute a personal attack on the
members of their group, and it was fair comment, imho, on Henry. Many Tudor
historians/aficionados may not be "anti-Richard" per se, but in most cases
that I have seen, they have imbibed the conventional wisdom with their
mother's milk, seemingly, and are not about to stir things up. It's much
more comfortable if one plays it safe, and that is - "Richard was a usurper
who killed his nephews; therefore Henry was justified in killing him,
killing a whole lot of other people, and trying to pretend that Richard's
reign never took place." There has been an imbalance, and I do think the
Ricardians have had to be more dedicated, have had to persevere through
prejudice and condescension toward them. My #1 example - Philippa Langley! I
think it is only fair that the Henry VII Society FB should be as "balanced"
in its presentations and comments as this Forum is, and as the RIII Society
webpages and FB pages are, but I don't plan to hold my breath.

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 Karen
Clark
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:23 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

Every time someone who identifies as a 'Ricardian' does something like this,
it just reinforces a negative view. I really don't want to be caught up in
that. Others who commented on that page have made no secret of their
irrationality. They're fairly well known in the history groups.

Karen

From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com
>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:26 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
(got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I
didn't post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems
I'm not the only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut
out for them! Maire.

P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone
writing on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider
myself a Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s.
mm

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my
"friends."
> Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's
bravery.
> Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook
page
> > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it
funny
> > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's
expense.
> > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or
making a
> > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward
to. I
> > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
view.
> > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> >
> > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
how
> > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in
the
> > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the
second
> > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
we?
> > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I
don't
> > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

>
> >
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there
is no
> > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not
only
> > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does
any
> other
> > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
don't
> > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they
wander
> around
> > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
boot
> > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that
this
> siege
> > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
trolling
> > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > nutters.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
Society.
> > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > https://www.facebook.com/# https://www.facebook.com/>
!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More
jumping
> on
> > > the
> > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too
much.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could
admire
> > Tudor.
> > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
they
> > are
> > > > just being contrary.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, Aidan, to be fair, I did make a snarky joke about a facial reconstruction of Henry's face - they are still commenting about it. Also, "unfriending" on Facebook is not really banning. It's standard Facebook practice. I do it myself on my own page. Also, I only know I was unfriended because I can't access the Society's page. I can only do it through my husband's email address. I just can't believe I upset so many folks! For that, I apologize. For dissing Henry? Never. Maire.
--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> A site that does not allow 'opposing' views, such as Maire's observation, which we have a source for, that
> Henry tried to hide behind a tree would be perfectly valid observations.
> A reasonable and unbiased site such as you describe below would not (or should not)see it as anything other than information being added.
>
> There is a difference from what Maire said there to 'trolling'which is essentially sourceless and baseless sneers, often including ad-hominem attacks on other contributors.
>
> On this basis Maire was not trolling and the banning of her says much about the admins of the site.
> If they will not allow for reasonable opposing positions and ban those posting them, then the site simply
> becomes an 'echo chamber'
>
> If 'Tudorians' appeared on here with reasonable arguments and engaged in useful discussion - checking sources given them
> and giving sources for any position of theirs then I cannot see but that they would be welcome, and should be.
>
> In the spirit of what you said below, I respectfully disagree that Maire did anything disrespectful or out of line.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>  
> Maire
>
> Anyone who joins a group (anyone) for the sole purpose of making
> inflammatory remarks is out of line. A lot of us, in various different
> groups (and even on my Richard page) have found the same people coming in
> simply to stir up trouble, usually without a firm basis of knowledge and
> almost never prepared to give a source for their assertions. There is often
> a strong reaction because we've seen it all before. Most of the people who
> commented don't have Henry Tudor as their 'hero'. We're all interested in
> history and, as I said, the history community on facebook doesn't generally
> operate on an 'us' and 'them' basis. In my own group, I have Ricardians and
> non-Ricardians; Lancastrians and Yorkists; people who like the Percies and
> (of course) people who like the Nevills. There's one member who's
> particularly fond of the Wydevilles and several who research and write about
> the Tudors. There are published writers and re-enactors; people with years
> of reading behind them and those who are relatively new to history. We're
> all there because of our interest in the Wars of the Roses. We accept each
> other's views and interests, though we don't always agree. Sometimes, we
> make 'silly jokes'. But we know and respect each other, the right to make
> jokes has been earned.
>
> I don't think there's anything more I can say about this. Just maybe that we
> should respect other people's interests as we'd like our own to be
> respected.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:32:11 -0000
> To: >
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
> I couldn't believe they were squawking about "bullies" - considering their
> hero - a man who allowed an anointed king's body to be butchered - was a
> major bully, himself! I made two jokes and their world is collapsing. I
> love your comments there - much more considered than mine, lol! Maire.
>
> --- In
> , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Maire,
> > Â
> > I've just had a good look at their page (and made a couple of (hopefully non
> inflammatory )comments. What's all the fuss they're making on there about
> "Ricardian bullies" and trolling?  You  made a couple of silly (and funny to
> most of us) comments and a few other people posted on there some uncomplimentary
> things about Tudor, such as he was a usurper (indeed he was!) and may have
> killed the Princes (unfortunately I don't see how although I wouldn't put it
> past his mother).
> > Â
> > Frankly the comments are NOTHING compared with those I've seen on our Society
> FB page and others. It seems to me that there is a very raw nerve out there,
> probably because they all know the Tudor supporters have been vilifing Richard
> and us for decades and they think they're going to get it back. Now I know two
> wrongs don't make a right and all that but if I feel like sticking up for him,Â
> I will. I certainly have no intention of being rude about people posting on
> there but if they can't take a few silly jokes, stuff 'em.
> > Â
> > Â
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mairemulholland
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:05
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> > Â
> > I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't
> post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the
> only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them!
> Maire.
> >
> > P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing
> on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a
> Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > > Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making
> a
> > > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to.
> I
> > > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
> view.
> > > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > > >
> > > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
> how
> > > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maire
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
> we?
> > > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is
> no
> > > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > > other
> > > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
> don't
> > > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > > around
> > > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> boot
> > > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > > siege
> > > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> trolling
> > > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > > nutters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> Society.
> > > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > > Tudor.
> > > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> they
> > > > are
> > > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Henry VIII, was a learned man, but ruthless, lusty, and gluttonous. We studied him, because he was famous/infamous and a lot was know about him, and of course, Elizabeth. In future, I do believe the world of education will be more sensitive to the Yorkist, and this find of Richard III is a pivotal moment for everyone.
One of my other passions is Latin American culture. The Maya have been studied for years, and yet more things are being discover almost every day.
I think we keep open minds, tell the story of Richard the Third, and imagine how awful the times were during the War of the Roses. My York ancestors probably swept floors or mucked out stables. That is just fine. I still admire the Yorkists, and am anxious to learn more, and more and more!!!

On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:34 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Karen,

I'd be interested to know just "why" on earth they admire him. I remember first reading about him when doing O level history (we did nothing about Richard of course) and from that day to this (40 years), can't for the life of me find anything to like or admire in the man.








Liz




________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 13:02
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society


Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making a
joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to. I
want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of view.
I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.

I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know how
damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.

Karen

From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society

When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> There's nothing funny about trolling.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mairemulholland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't we?
> That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>

> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is no
> > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any other
> > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans' don't
> > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander around
> > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the boot
> > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this siege
> > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of trolling
> > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > nutters.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third Society.
> > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > >
> > >
> > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping on
> the
> > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > >
> > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
Tudor.
> > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think they
are
> > just being contrary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, now, look, it's not as if you personally assured the failure of the worldwide wheat crop. A little perspective might be useful here. I think it's funny, and telling, that you posted, "Yeah, didn't one of his French mercenaries write the folks back home that Henry hid behind them so the big bad scary Richard wouldn't smite him into the next millennium?" and they lowered the ban hammer on you.

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
>
> Well, Aidan, to be fair, I did make a snarky joke about a facial reconstruction of Henry's face - they are still commenting about it. Also, "unfriending" on Facebook is not really banning. It's standard Facebook practice. I do it myself on my own page. Also, I only know I was unfriended because I can't access the Society's page. I can only do it through my husband's email address. I just can't believe I upset so many folks! For that, I apologize. For dissing Henry? Never. Maire.
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > A site that does not allow 'opposing' views, such as Maire's observation, which we have a source for, that
> > Henry tried to hide behind a tree would be perfectly valid observations.
> > A reasonable and unbiased site such as you describe below would not (or should not)see it as anything other than information being added.
> >
> > There is a difference from what Maire said there to 'trolling'which is essentially sourceless and baseless sneers, often including ad-hominem attacks on other contributors.
> >
> > On this basis Maire was not trolling and the banning of her says much about the admins of the site.
> > If they will not allow for reasonable opposing positions and ban those posting them, then the site simply
> > becomes an 'echo chamber'
> >
> > If 'Tudorians' appeared on here with reasonable arguments and engaged in useful discussion - checking sources given them
> > and giving sources for any position of theirs then I cannot see but that they would be welcome, and should be.
> >
> > In the spirit of what you said below, I respectfully disagree that Maire did anything disrespectful or out of line.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013 11:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> >
> >  
> > Maire
> >
> > Anyone who joins a group (anyone) for the sole purpose of making
> > inflammatory remarks is out of line. A lot of us, in various different
> > groups (and even on my Richard page) have found the same people coming in
> > simply to stir up trouble, usually without a firm basis of knowledge and
> > almost never prepared to give a source for their assertions. There is often
> > a strong reaction because we've seen it all before. Most of the people who
> > commented don't have Henry Tudor as their 'hero'. We're all interested in
> > history and, as I said, the history community on facebook doesn't generally
> > operate on an 'us' and 'them' basis. In my own group, I have Ricardians and
> > non-Ricardians; Lancastrians and Yorkists; people who like the Percies and
> > (of course) people who like the Nevills. There's one member who's
> > particularly fond of the Wydevilles and several who research and write about
> > the Tudors. There are published writers and re-enactors; people with years
> > of reading behind them and those who are relatively new to history. We're
> > all there because of our interest in the Wars of the Roses. We accept each
> > other's views and interests, though we don't always agree. Sometimes, we
> > make 'silly jokes'. But we know and respect each other, the right to make
> > jokes has been earned.
> >
> > I don't think there's anything more I can say about this. Just maybe that we
> > should respect other people's interests as we'd like our own to be
> > respected.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@>
> > Reply-To: >
> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:32:11 -0000
> > To: >
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> >
> > I couldn't believe they were squawking about "bullies" - considering their
> > hero - a man who allowed an anointed king's body to be butchered - was a
> > major bully, himself! I made two jokes and their world is collapsing. I
> > love your comments there - much more considered than mine, lol! Maire.
> >
> > --- In
> > , liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire,
> > > Â
> > > I've just had a good look at their page (and made a couple of (hopefully non
> > inflammatory )comments. What's all the fuss they're making on there about
> > "Ricardian bullies" and trolling?  You  made a couple of silly (and funny to
> > most of us) comments and a few other people posted on there some uncomplimentary
> > things about Tudor, such as he was a usurper (indeed he was!) and may have
> > killed the Princes (unfortunately I don't see how although I wouldn't put it
> > past his mother).
> > > Â
> > > Frankly the comments are NOTHING compared with those I've seen on our Society
> > FB page and others. It seems to me that there is a very raw nerve out there,
> > probably because they all know the Tudor supporters have been vilifing Richard
> > and us for decades and they think they're going to get it back. Now I know two
> > wrongs don't make a right and all that but if I feel like sticking up for him,Â
> > I will. I certainly have no intention of being rude about people posting on
> > there but if they can't take a few silly jokes, stuff 'em.
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mairemulholland
> > > To:
> >
> > > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:05
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > > Â
> > > I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> > (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't
> > post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the
> > only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them!
> > Maire.
> > >
> > > P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing
> > on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a
> > Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire
> > > >
> > > > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > > > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > > > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > > > Maire.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making
> > a
> > > > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to.
> > I
> > > > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
> > view.
> > > > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
> > how
> > > > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maire
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
> > we?
> > > > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is
> > no
> > > > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > > > other
> > > > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
> > don't
> > > > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > > > around
> > > > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> > boot
> > > > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > > > siege
> > > > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> > trolling
> > > > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > > > nutters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Karen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> > Society.
> > > > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > > > Tudor.
> > > > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> > they
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

You mean, I'm NOT the first martyr to the Henry Tudor Society? Woe is me. mm.

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> Well, now, look, it's not as if you personally assured the failure of the worldwide wheat crop. A little perspective might be useful here. I think it's funny, and telling, that you posted, "Yeah, didn't one of his French mercenaries write the folks back home that Henry hid behind them so the big bad scary Richard wouldn't smite him into the next millennium?" and they lowered the ban hammer on you.
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, Aidan, to be fair, I did make a snarky joke about a facial reconstruction of Henry's face - they are still commenting about it. Also, "unfriending" on Facebook is not really banning. It's standard Facebook practice. I do it myself on my own page. Also, I only know I was unfriended because I can't access the Society's page. I can only do it through my husband's email address. I just can't believe I upset so many folks! For that, I apologize. For dissing Henry? Never. Maire.
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > A site that does not allow 'opposing' views, such as Maire's observation, which we have a source for, that
> > > Henry tried to hide behind a tree would be perfectly valid observations.
> > > A reasonable and unbiased site such as you describe below would not (or should not)see it as anything other than information being added.
> > >
> > > There is a difference from what Maire said there to 'trolling'which is essentially sourceless and baseless sneers, often including ad-hominem attacks on other contributors.
> > >
> > > On this basis Maire was not trolling and the banning of her says much about the admins of the site.
> > > If they will not allow for reasonable opposing positions and ban those posting them, then the site simply
> > > becomes an 'echo chamber'
> > >
> > > If 'Tudorians' appeared on here with reasonable arguments and engaged in useful discussion - checking sources given them
> > > and giving sources for any position of theirs then I cannot see but that they would be welcome, and should be.
> > >
> > > In the spirit of what you said below, I respectfully disagree that Maire did anything disrespectful or out of line.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Karen Clark
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013 11:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Maire
> > >
> > > Anyone who joins a group (anyone) for the sole purpose of making
> > > inflammatory remarks is out of line. A lot of us, in various different
> > > groups (and even on my Richard page) have found the same people coming in
> > > simply to stir up trouble, usually without a firm basis of knowledge and
> > > almost never prepared to give a source for their assertions. There is often
> > > a strong reaction because we've seen it all before. Most of the people who
> > > commented don't have Henry Tudor as their 'hero'. We're all interested in
> > > history and, as I said, the history community on facebook doesn't generally
> > > operate on an 'us' and 'them' basis. In my own group, I have Ricardians and
> > > non-Ricardians; Lancastrians and Yorkists; people who like the Percies and
> > > (of course) people who like the Nevills. There's one member who's
> > > particularly fond of the Wydevilles and several who research and write about
> > > the Tudors. There are published writers and re-enactors; people with years
> > > of reading behind them and those who are relatively new to history. We're
> > > all there because of our interest in the Wars of the Roses. We accept each
> > > other's views and interests, though we don't always agree. Sometimes, we
> > > make 'silly jokes'. But we know and respect each other, the right to make
> > > jokes has been earned.
> > >
> > > I don't think there's anything more I can say about this. Just maybe that we
> > > should respect other people's interests as we'd like our own to be
> > > respected.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@>
> > > Reply-To: >
> > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:32:11 -0000
> > > To: >
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > >
> > > I couldn't believe they were squawking about "bullies" - considering their
> > > hero - a man who allowed an anointed king's body to be butchered - was a
> > > major bully, himself! I made two jokes and their world is collapsing. I
> > > love your comments there - much more considered than mine, lol! Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > , liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maire,
> > > > Â
> > > > I've just had a good look at their page (and made a couple of (hopefully non
> > > inflammatory )comments. What's all the fuss they're making on there about
> > > "Ricardian bullies" and trolling?  You  made a couple of silly (and funny to
> > > most of us) comments and a few other people posted on there some uncomplimentary
> > > things about Tudor, such as he was a usurper (indeed he was!) and may have
> > > killed the Princes (unfortunately I don't see how although I wouldn't put it
> > > past his mother).
> > > > Â
> > > > Frankly the comments are NOTHING compared with those I've seen on our Society
> > > FB page and others. It seems to me that there is a very raw nerve out there,
> > > probably because they all know the Tudor supporters have been vilifing Richard
> > > and us for decades and they think they're going to get it back. Now I know two
> > > wrongs don't make a right and all that but if I feel like sticking up for him,Â
> > > I will. I certainly have no intention of being rude about people posting on
> > > there but if they can't take a few silly jokes, stuff 'em.
> > > > Â
> > > > Â
> > > > Â
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > To:
> > >
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 14:05
> > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > I see you've been apologizing for some of us over at the Henry Tudor Society
> > > (got through on my husband's account) which was founded last Thursday. I didn't
> > > post anything because I'm officially banned over there. But it seems I'm not the
> > > only one being snarky about Henry. They'll have their work cut out for them!
> > > Maire.
> > > >
> > > > P.S.: On a serious note, maybe you can let them know that not everyone writing
> > > on that page is a member of the R III Society. While I consider myself a
> > > Ricardian, I haven't belonged to the Society since the late 1970s. mm
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maire
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:00 -0000
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Facebook is very rough and tumble. It's not some genteel group of people
> > > > > trying to be overly polite to each other - at least not among my "friends."
> > > > > Somehow, I think the Tudor Society will survive my jest at Henry's bravery.
> > > > > Maire.
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maire, that's comments on a newspaper website, not joining a facebook page
> > > > > > simply to leave 'silly jokes'. I don't think any of us would find it funny
> > > > > > if someone joined this forum just to have 'some fun' at Richard's expense.
> > > > > > That's what makes it trolling, not commenting on an open forum, or making
> > > a
> > > > > > joke, nor even disagreeing with someone, but deliberately joining a page
> > > > > > with no intention of being part of the discussion, just leaving comments
> > > > > > designed to provoke a reaction. Learning something about Henry VII from
> > > > > > someone who seems to know their stuff is something I'm looking forward to.
> > > I
> > > > > > want to know *more* about history, not confine myself to one point of
> > > view.
> > > > > > I know that's not for everyone, and that's perfectly fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I really don't want to preach, but as someone who runs several facebook
> > > > > > groups and pages (where all kinds of points of view are welcomed) I know
> > > how
> > > > > > damaging and hurtful this kind of thing can be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:42:05 -0000
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When the Guardian ran what seemed like endless articles on Richard in the
> > > > > > last few weeks, the comments section from Tudor fans was filled with
> > > > > > absolute dripping hatred - and filth. So, I don't think going over to a
> > > > > > facebook page (free for everyone!) and having a silly joke at Tudor's
> > > > > > expense is either trolling or being destructive. By the way, by the second
> > > > > > joke, Henry "unfriended" me. I'm still hurt. Maire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maire
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's nothing funny about trolling.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Karen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: mairemulholland
> > > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:18:24 -0000
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My Goodness! We really need to get a sense of humor about this, don't
> > > we?
> > > > > > > That was my only point in dissing the Henry Tudor facebook page. I don't
> > > > > > > think being a Ricardian means you can't have fun on facebook! Maire.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Paul, why on earth would it be? Despite what people believe, there is
> > > no
> > > > > > > > great animosity from 'fans' of the Tudors towards Ricardians. Not only
> > > > > > > > aren't they 'dissing Richard too much', they're not (and nor does any
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > Tudor page/group on facebook) dissing Richard at all! Tudor 'fans'
> > > don't
> > > > > > > > hate Richard III, nor do they hate Ricardians. And nor do they wander
> > > > > around
> > > > > > > > facebook looking for Ricardian pages to 'swamp' so they can 'get the
> > > boot
> > > > > > > > in'. Franky, I'm appalled at this behaviour and ask, please, that this
> > > > > siege
> > > > > > > > mentality come to an end. Apart from anything, else, this kind of
> > > trolling
> > > > > > > > only strengthens the idea that Ricardians are fanatical, reactionary
> > > > > > > > nutters.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Karen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:33:28 +0000
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor Society
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Clearly formed to counteract the success of the Richard the Third
> > > Society.
> > > > > > > > Doubt it will last long. Let nobody do anything to encourage them.
> > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 09/02/2013 20:42, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/#!/HenryTudorSociety
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > TI just found this. The FB page was created this month. More jumping
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > bandwagon? Although to be fair, they aren't dissing Richard too much.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have to say though I just don't understand why anyone could admire
> > > > > > Tudor.
> > > > > > > > Sneaky, miserly and with no concept of justice at all. I often think
> > > they
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > just being contrary.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>