Re: [SPAM] Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard at Bosworth, The

I think that it is an interesting thought, though why would a Knight charge directly at a line of pole axes or Halberd ( Pikes were a little bit later) I am not into horses, but I can believe that no horse would charge directly into a line of skewers. I think that Richard charged seeing a weakness in the opposing forces, nearly got to Edward, but reinforcements arriving forced him to the side of his line of attack. This was between attacking forces of encircling enemy. His supposed escape route that had marsh to one side and was impassable. With nowhere to go and cut off from the main body of his army he was unable either to ride or wade through marsh and escape&&&&..the end was brutal but I would think mercifully short. Surrounded on 3 sides he was attacked at distance ( about 10-20 ft.) so that no one would enter within his sword distance and repeatedly hit with pole axes or Halberd knocking of his helmet and him to the ground his chain ring mail would have prevented any penetration till this was pulled down while unconscious. This is where Marie comes in and tells the story / factual recount / Tudor lie of the Crown being recovered from a hawthorn bush. The rest we now know at least from history as it is written by the winners! The pincer attack has been used prehistory as a way of feint to draw opposing forces into a pre made trap, whether this was a premeditated trap or just bad luck we will never know but the result was conclusive.

George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:52 PM
To:
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush





Great Post George!
This was posted today on the King RIII page on fb. Any thoughts?
https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll
It is an analyses of the Michael Jones' book Psychology of Battle. He says R fought on feet after his cavalry charge smashed into the pike line..... Would that explain his injuries?

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@... <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

Great information George, so interesting. In fact, great posts all day from everyone!

On Feb 15, 2013, at 2:18 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >> wrote:

Typically there were two types of axe for mounted and dismounted warfare the longer and broader being used on the ground , while a shorter and less broad being used by cavalry.

Some had spikes opposite the blade for piercing while others had a flat hammer surface for just causing concussion.

All of them were pretty lethal for close engagement or attacking horses to knock down a knight, they went out of favor when pistols became accurate and consolidated from the hand cannon.

A farrier of the Royal Household cavalry still carries a ceremonial battle axe and I believe is also the only man in the British army entitled to a beard.

http://householdcavalry.info/horses.html#farrier

http://householdcavalry.info/horses.html#answers

George

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 2:17 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

Tell us about battle axe while you are at it. Wasn't that R's fav weapon? I understand it was an offensive weapon not defensive. Is that true?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.comhttp://www.ishitabandyo.com>
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofineartshttp://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.comhttp://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>

On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> It's a small uphill battle that I fight one person at a time but as you can see the fighting helm was a far cry from the pseudo romantic gothic thing that people get to think as armor. My next battle is getting people to understand medieval swords as to sharpness and lethality.
>
> George
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
> At a quick glance I think I have been confusing the 16th century close helms - you know, the ones with the 'beaks', rather than the slit eyes and fan backs (mu description). I shall follow your programme. Yours humbly H
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
> To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 16:41
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
> Hilary
> itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/arms-and-armor-video/id430946611http://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/arms-and-armor-video/id430946611>
>
> This is a short course that you can download to iTunes so that you can put it in your library. It shows armor and development as well as its use etc. take a look its quite interesting
> George
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > I'm glad I'm wrong.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
> > To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> @yahoogroups.comhttp://yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 16:29
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >
> > Noooooooooooo !
> >
> > http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm
> >
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >
> > > So do I - I see his helmet as being the sort similar to that of a diver today; it would have to come off over the head, not be unfastened like the sallets and 'WW2' tin hats of the common soldiers. But I really don't know enough.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:17
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Exactly what I think happened...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I think what's worrying a lot of us is that Richard may have had to be overpowered in order for his enemies to remove his helm.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Sir George Wrote:

> I think that it is an interesting thought, though why would a Knight charge directly at a line of pole axes or Halberd ( Pikes were a little bit later) I am not into horses, but I can believe that no horse would charge directly into a line of skewers.



Weds here:

If the horse trusts you, he or she will do anything you ask -- including override their instincts for self-preservation. (Meaning, the horse's knowledge of its relationship with you will override its instincts unless/until you do something stupid to wreck that trust.)

Two questions here: (1) Would Richard have had that sort of relationship with his warhorse? We have way of knowing. Training alone will not form this sort of a bond; and, (2) Would Richard's warhorse know the damage skewers could do if he saw them lined up against him? (For example: No modern horse sees barbed wire and thinks, "Oh, that'll rip up my legs to the point of stripping off the skin and maybe even kill me so I'd better stay out of it.")

Any road, I don't think Richard would have ordered the horse to skewer itself, but the soldiers may have skewered the horse anyway. Alternately, legend says the horse ended up in the bog. Maybe so, maybe no, maybe somehow a combination of both.

A horse gallops at a maximum of 35 mph (and that was Secretariat). I don't know how to figure the distance a warhorse would need to pull up when he's going galloping downhill at [wherever Bosworth really was]. Someone would have to figure out such things as the weight of the horse and rider, distance, how fast they accelerated and were going when they reached Henry/his men, etc....and algebra it out. Then someone would have to figure out where Henry and his little company was, how soon his protective skewerers got there and surrounded him (and DID they surround him, or did they come late to the party after Richard had reached Henry's smaller company?), and where everybody was positioned in relation to the ancient marsh.

IF the legend of Richard's horse ending up in the marsh is true, then I'm wondering if the skewerers knew they couldn't best Richard while he was mounted, so they concentrated on pushing the horse sideways or backward into the marsh, and Richard didn't notice because he was...erm...distracted by whatever was in front of him.

All it would take is two of the horse's feet being sucked down into the muck. If his back feet sank up to his hocks, he could probably still get out. But in a marsh, the more he fought, the more he'd sink, yes? So I don't see a heavy warhorse able to escape. He'd have weighed anywhere from 850 to 1200 pounds (that weight range is from an Arabian to a Thoroughdale [Thoroughbred/Clydesdale cross]).

If horse and rider did end up in the marsh, Richard could still fight -- unless they tipped the horse sideways and Richard ended up in the muck/could no longer see -- and maybe that would have been mentioned in the records?

If he wasn't tipped into the marsh himself, I can see him standing on the horse and using it as a bridge to try getting out of the marsh and keep fighting. Because *someone* got him out of that marsh at some point, and I'd like it to have been himself while he was still feisty and fighting. "I may be going to die, but I'm STILL taking as many of you with me as I can."

He could then still be attacked at distance as George has written.

<deliberately clipped the rest of Sir George's post to leave Richard still fighting>

~Weds

I guess I have to read the book......"Psychology" of war seems like a loaded phrase.
Well one more question: how did Richard end up in the marsh? He was charging at Tudor. He was attacked by Stanleys force from behind and then surrounded. How did he get in that bloody marsh? Or is it another of those legends?
As for the horse, was he unsitted from the horse? I can't think of any reason why he would just get down and decide to fight on foot.




________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)


 
Sir George Wrote:

> I think that it is an interesting thought, though why would a Knight charge directly at a line of pole axes or Halberd ( Pikes were a little bit later) I am not into horses, but I can believe that no horse would charge directly into a line of skewers.

Weds here:

If the horse trusts you, he or she will do anything you ask -- including override their instincts for self-preservation. (Meaning, the horse's knowledge of its relationship with you will override its instincts unless/until you do something stupid to wreck that trust.)

Two questions here: (1) Would Richard have had that sort of relationship with his warhorse? We have way of knowing. Training alone will not form this sort of a bond; and, (2) Would Richard's warhorse know the damage skewers could do if he saw them lined up against him? (For example: No modern horse sees barbed wire and thinks, "Oh, that'll rip up my legs to the point of stripping off the skin and maybe even kill me so I'd better stay out of it.")

Any road, I don't think Richard would have ordered the horse to skewer itself, but the soldiers may have skewered the horse anyway. Alternately, legend says the horse ended up in the bog. Maybe so, maybe no, maybe somehow a combination of both.

A horse gallops at a maximum of 35 mph (and that was Secretariat). I don't know how to figure the distance a warhorse would need to pull up when he's going galloping downhill at [wherever Bosworth really was]. Someone would have to figure out such things as the weight of the horse and rider, distance, how fast they accelerated and were going when they reached Henry/his men, etc....and algebra it out. Then someone would have to figure out where Henry and his little company was, how soon his protective skewerers got there and surrounded him (and DID they surround him, or did they come late to the party after Richard had reached Henry's smaller company?), and where everybody was positioned in relation to the ancient marsh.

IF the legend of Richard's horse ending up in the marsh is true, then I'm wondering if the skewerers knew they couldn't best Richard while he was mounted, so they concentrated on pushing the horse sideways or backward into the marsh, and Richard didn't notice because he was...erm...distracted by whatever was in front of him.

All it would take is two of the horse's feet being sucked down into the muck. If his back feet sank up to his hocks, he could probably still get out. But in a marsh, the more he fought, the more he'd sink, yes? So I don't see a heavy warhorse able to escape. He'd have weighed anywhere from 850 to 1200 pounds (that weight range is from an Arabian to a Thoroughdale [Thoroughbred/Clydesdale cross]).

If horse and rider did end up in the marsh, Richard could still fight -- unless they tipped the horse sideways and Richard ended up in the muck/could no longer see -- and maybe that would have been mentioned in the records?

If he wasn't tipped into the marsh himself, I can see him standing on the horse and using it as a bridge to try getting out of the marsh and keep fighting. Because *someone* got him out of that marsh at some point, and I'd like it to have been himself while he was still feisty and fighting. "I may be going to die, but I'm STILL taking as many of you with me as I can."

He could then still be attacked at distance as George has written.



~Weds

Why the heck my post says "SPAM"?? Yahoo is turned on its head just by the volume from this group:/



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)


 
I guess I have to read the book......"Psychology" of war seems like a loaded phrase.
Well one more question: how did Richard end up in the marsh? He was charging at Tudor. He was attacked by Stanleys force from behind and then surrounded. How did he get in that bloody marsh? Or is it another of those legends?
As for the horse, was he unsitted from the horse? I can't think of any reason why he would just get down and decide to fight on foot.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)


 
Sir George Wrote:

> I think that it is an interesting thought, though why would a Knight charge directly at a line of pole axes or Halberd ( Pikes were a little bit later) I am not into horses, but I can believe that no horse would charge directly into a line of skewers.

Weds here:

If the horse trusts you, he or she will do anything you ask -- including override their instincts for self-preservation. (Meaning, the horse's knowledge of its relationship with you will override its instincts unless/until you do something stupid to wreck that trust.)

Two questions here: (1) Would Richard have had that sort of relationship with his warhorse? We have way of knowing. Training alone will not form this sort of a bond; and, (2) Would Richard's warhorse know the damage skewers could do if he saw them lined up against him? (For example: No modern horse sees barbed wire and thinks, "Oh, that'll rip up my legs to the point of stripping off the skin and maybe even kill me so I'd better stay out of it.")

Any road, I don't think Richard would have ordered the horse to skewer itself, but the soldiers may have skewered the horse anyway. Alternately, legend says the horse ended up in the bog. Maybe so, maybe no, maybe somehow a combination of both.

A horse gallops at a maximum of 35 mph (and that was Secretariat). I don't know how to figure the distance a warhorse would need to pull up when he's going galloping downhill at [wherever Bosworth really was]. Someone would have to figure out such things as the weight of the horse and rider, distance, how fast they accelerated and were going when they reached Henry/his men, etc....and algebra it out. Then someone would have to figure out where Henry and his little company was, how soon his protective skewerers got there and surrounded him (and DID they surround him, or did they come late to the party after Richard had reached Henry's smaller company?), and where everybody was positioned in relation to the ancient marsh.

IF the legend of Richard's horse ending up in the marsh is true, then I'm wondering if the skewerers knew they couldn't best Richard while he was mounted, so they concentrated on pushing the horse sideways or backward into the marsh, and Richard didn't notice because he was...erm...distracted by whatever was in front of him.

All it would take is two of the horse's feet being sucked down into the muck. If his back feet sank up to his hocks, he could probably still get out. But in a marsh, the more he fought, the more he'd sink, yes? So I don't see a heavy warhorse able to escape. He'd have weighed anywhere from 850 to 1200 pounds (that weight range is from an Arabian to a Thoroughdale [Thoroughbred/Clydesdale cross]).

If horse and rider did end up in the marsh, Richard could still fight -- unless they tipped the horse sideways and Richard ended up in the muck/could no longer see -- and maybe that would have been mentioned in the records?

If he wasn't tipped into the marsh himself, I can see him standing on the horse and using it as a bridge to try getting out of the marsh and keep fighting. Because *someone* got him out of that marsh at some point, and I'd like it to have been himself while he was still feisty and fighting. "I may be going to die, but I'm STILL taking as many of you with me as I can."

He could then still be attacked at distance as George has written.

~Weds

Weds wrote:
[snip]
> IF the legend of Richard's horse ending up in the marsh is true, then I'm wondering if the skewerers knew they couldn't best Richard while he was mounted, so they concentrated on pushing the horse sideways or backward into the marsh, and Richard didn't notice because he was...erm...distracted by whatever was in front of him.
>
> All it would take is two of the horse's feet being sucked down into the muck. If his back feet sank up to his hocks, he could probably still get out. But in a marsh, the more he fought, the more he'd sink, yes? So I don't see a heavy warhorse able to escape. He'd have weighed anywhere from 850 to 1200 pounds (that weight range is from an Arabian to a Thoroughdale [Thoroughbred/Clydesdale cross]).
>
> If horse and rider did end up in the marsh, Richard could still fight -- unless they tipped the horse sideways and Richard ended up in the muck/could no longer see -- and maybe that would have been mentioned in the records? [snip]

Carol responds:

There are no battle records per se, but the chronicles, even Vergil, have him fighting manfully to the end. I don't recall a marsh being mentioned in any of them, but this discussion seems to take it for granted. Can anyone tell me who first mentioned a marsh?

Carol

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Why the heck my post says "SPAM"?? Yahoo is turned on its head just by the volume from this group:/

Carol responds:

For those of you plagued by deleting posts, posts labeled spam, spelling checks making Richard's skeleton x-rated (which, I confess, made me laugh), may I suggest at least temporarily turning off e-mail from this group and reading and posting from the site? Those of you whose e-mail allows only a few hundred messages in the inbox would particularly benefit from this option. If you're interested in trying this experiment, just go to the group website and change your options. Posting from the site also allows you to follow threads instead of losing track because you've deleted the posts, to do a search, to check files and photos, etc. I have no personal stake in this. I'm just making what I hope is a helpful suggestion.

Carol

Very good post Weds...as someone who is terrified of horses...and what I know about them can be put on a postage stamp...the way you explain it makes it very understandable...I love the way you almost know how a horse thinks....even my cat is a mystery to me. Eileen

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Sir George Wrote:
>
> > I think that it is an interesting thought, though why would a Knight charge directly at a line of pole axes or Halberd ( Pikes were a little bit later) I am not into horses, but I can believe that no horse would charge directly into a line of skewers.
>
>
>
> Weds here:
>
> If the horse trusts you, he or she will do anything you ask -- including override their instincts for self-preservation. (Meaning, the horse's knowledge of its relationship with you will override its instincts unless/until you do something stupid to wreck that trust.)
>
> Two questions here: (1) Would Richard have had that sort of relationship with his warhorse? We have way of knowing. Training alone will not form this sort of a bond; and, (2) Would Richard's warhorse know the damage skewers could do if he saw them lined up against him? (For example: No modern horse sees barbed wire and thinks, "Oh, that'll rip up my legs to the point of stripping off the skin and maybe even kill me so I'd better stay out of it.")
>
> Any road, I don't think Richard would have ordered the horse to skewer itself, but the soldiers may have skewered the horse anyway. Alternately, legend says the horse ended up in the bog. Maybe so, maybe no, maybe somehow a combination of both.
>
> A horse gallops at a maximum of 35 mph (and that was Secretariat). I don't know how to figure the distance a warhorse would need to pull up when he's going galloping downhill at [wherever Bosworth really was]. Someone would have to figure out such things as the weight of the horse and rider, distance, how fast they accelerated and were going when they reached Henry/his men, etc....and algebra it out. Then someone would have to figure out where Henry and his little company was, how soon his protective skewerers got there and surrounded him (and DID they surround him, or did they come late to the party after Richard had reached Henry's smaller company?), and where everybody was positioned in relation to the ancient marsh.
>
> IF the legend of Richard's horse ending up in the marsh is true, then I'm wondering if the skewerers knew they couldn't best Richard while he was mounted, so they concentrated on pushing the horse sideways or backward into the marsh, and Richard didn't notice because he was...erm...distracted by whatever was in front of him.
>
> All it would take is two of the horse's feet being sucked down into the muck. If his back feet sank up to his hocks, he could probably still get out. But in a marsh, the more he fought, the more he'd sink, yes? So I don't see a heavy warhorse able to escape. He'd have weighed anywhere from 850 to 1200 pounds (that weight range is from an Arabian to a Thoroughdale [Thoroughbred/Clydesdale cross]).
>
> If horse and rider did end up in the marsh, Richard could still fight -- unless they tipped the horse sideways and Richard ended up in the muck/could no longer see -- and maybe that would have been mentioned in the records?
>
> If he wasn't tipped into the marsh himself, I can see him standing on the horse and using it as a bridge to try getting out of the marsh and keep fighting. Because *someone* got him out of that marsh at some point, and I'd like it to have been himself while he was still feisty and fighting. "I may be going to die, but I'm STILL taking as many of you with me as I can."
>
> He could then still be attacked at distance as George has written.
>
> <deliberately clipped the rest of Sir George's post to leave Richard still fighting>
>
> ~Weds
>

For the last few days all of Eileen's posts are going straight into my Spam folder- I have no idea why it's picking on her.  There are a lot of e mails and I think I am just skimming some of them.  Unfortunately I can't access the website at work (for some bizarre reason any website that has net or org as part of its address is banned) but I can access my yahoo e mail.   I am keeping up by reading  as many as I can during my lunch hour or unofficial tea breaks as well as when I am at home.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 15:42
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)

 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Why the heck my post says "SPAM"?? Yahoo is turned on its head just by the volume from this group:/

Carol responds:

For those of you plagued by deleting posts, posts labeled spam, spelling checks making Richard's skeleton x-rated (which, I confess, made me laugh), may I suggest at least temporarily turning off e-mail from this group and reading and posting from the site? Those of you whose e-mail allows only a few hundred messages in the inbox would particularly benefit from this option. If you're interested in trying this experiment, just go to the group website and change your options. Posting from the site also allows you to follow threads instead of losing track because you've deleted the posts, to do a search, to check files and photos, etc. I have no personal stake in this. I'm just making what I hope is a helpful suggestion.

Carol

Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> For the last few days all of Eileen's posts are going straight into my Spam folder- I have no idea why it's picking on her.  There are a lot of e mails and I think I am just skimming some of them.  Unfortunately I can't access the website at work (for some bizarre reason any website that has net or org as part of its address is banned) but I can access my yahoo e mail.   I am keeping up by reading  as many as I can during my lunch hour or unofficial tea breaks as well as when I am at home.
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 15:42
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
>  
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Why the heck my post says "SPAM"?? Yahoo is turned on its head just by the volume from this group:/
>
> Carol responds:
>
> For those of you plagued by deleting posts, posts labeled spam, spelling checks making Richard's skeleton x-rated (which, I confess, made me laugh), may I suggest at least temporarily turning off e-mail from this group and reading and posting from the site? Those of you whose e-mail allows only a few hundred messages in the inbox would particularly benefit from this option. If you're interested in trying this experiment, just go to the group website and change your options. Posting from the site also allows you to follow threads instead of losing track because you've deleted the posts, to do a search, to check files and photos, etc. I have no personal stake in this. I'm just making what I hope is a helpful suggestion.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

liz williams wrote:
>
[snip]
Unfortunately I can't access the website at work (for some bizarre reason any website that has net or org as part of its address is banned) but I can access my yahoo e mail. [snip]

Carol responds:

You're probably thinking of the R III Society website. This one is a .com:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

Or you can go directly to the Messages page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group//messages

Carol


t

Thanks for that Carol but unfortunately chat rooms and  forums are banned too.   Can't read Facebook either as are all sorts of weird and wonderful things that seem perfectly innocuous. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 18:54
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)

 

liz williams wrote:
>
[snip]
Unfortunately I can't access the website at work (for some bizarre reason any website that has net or org as part of its address is banned) but I can access my yahoo e mail. [snip]

Carol responds:

You're probably thinking of the R III Society website. This one is a .com:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

Or you can go directly to the Messages page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group//messages

Carol

t

or dangerous?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 17:00
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)

 
Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> For the last few days all of Eileen's posts are going straight into my Spam folder- I have no idea why it's picking on her.  There are a lot of e mails and I think I am just skimming some of them.  Unfortunately I can't access the website at work (for some bizarre reason any website that has net or org as part of its address is banned) but I can access my yahoo e mail.   I am keeping up by reading  as many as I can during my lunch hour or unofficial tea breaks as well as when I am at home.
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 15:42
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
>  
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Why the heck my post says "SPAM"?? Yahoo is turned on its head just by the volume from this group:/
>
> Carol responds:
>
> For those of you plagued by deleting posts, posts labeled spam, spelling checks making Richard's skeleton x-rated (which, I confess, made me laugh), may I suggest at least temporarily turning off e-mail from this group and reading and posting from the site? Those of you whose e-mail allows only a few hundred messages in the inbox would particularly benefit from this option. If you're interested in trying this experiment, just go to the group website and change your options. Posting from the site also allows you to follow threads instead of losing track because you've deleted the posts, to do a search, to check files and photos, etc. I have no personal stake in this. I'm just making what I hope is a helpful suggestion.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen wrote:

> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)

liz williams replied:
>
> or dangerous?

Carol responds:

I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.

Carol

Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!

On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Eileen wrote:

> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)

liz williams replied:
>
> or dangerous?

Carol responds:

I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.

Carol

"Hot Ukrainian girls wish to meet you online to discuss late fifteenth-century English history, with special emphasis on canon law regarding legitimacy of marriage and royal succession."

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
>
> liz williams replied:
> >
> > or dangerous?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
>
> Carol
>

Anastasia ?


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:22 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> "Hot Ukrainian girls wish to meet you online to discuss late fifteenth-century English history, with special emphasis on canon law regarding legitimacy of marriage and royal succession."
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> >
> > > Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
> >
> > liz williams replied:
> > >
> > > or dangerous?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

George, you crack me right the hell up. Actually, I have long considered Anna Anderson's con to be astoundingly successful, given that she started with virtually no knowledge of the Russian royal family (not surprising in those days) and managed to spin a lengthy lifetime's worth of financial support out of it.

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Anastasia ?
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:22 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> > "Hot Ukrainian girls wish to meet you online to discuss late fifteenth-century English history, with special emphasis on canon law regarding legitimacy of marriage and royal succession."
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
> > >
> > > liz williams replied:
> > > >
> > > > or dangerous?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Remember the phrase " in a country where everyone is blind, a man with one eye is King"
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:27 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> George, you crack me right the hell up. Actually, I have long considered Anna Anderson's con to be astoundingly successful, given that she started with virtually no knowledge of the Russian royal family (not surprising in those days) and managed to spin a lengthy lifetime's worth of financial support out of it.
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Anastasia ?
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:22 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > > "Hot Ukrainian girls wish to meet you online to discuss late fifteenth-century English history, with special emphasis on canon law regarding legitimacy of marriage and royal succession."
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
> > > >
> > > > liz williams replied:
> > > > >
> > > > > or dangerous?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Or Millais' Painting perhaps
Elaine

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
>
> liz williams replied:
> >
> > or dangerous?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
>
> Carol
>

"ellrosa1452" wrote:
>
> Or Millais' Painting perhaps

Carol responds:

Can anyone even count the number of books that have that sentimental painting of two pretty boys on the cover? Either that or the Society of Antiquaries portrait of Richard (before or after the cleaning). The book designers should use a little imagination! (Of course, there are worse paintings of the supposed murder victims, which they understandably chose not to use.)

Carol

I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
 
How innocent am I?

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)

Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!

On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Eileen wrote:

> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)

liz williams replied:
>
> or dangerous?

Carol responds:

I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.

Carol

Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
>  
> How innocent am I?
>
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
>
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
>
> liz williams replied:
> >
> > or dangerous?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If it's any consolation they keep putting Paul's in mine. Perhaps they think he's offering some foreign investment opportunity?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:24
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)


 

Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
>  
> How innocent am I?
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
>
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
>
> liz williams replied:
> >
> > or dangerous?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Never, not even detritus from the dig!!! Happy Monday


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)



Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>
> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
>
> How innocent am I?
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
>
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
>
> liz williams replied:
> >
> > or dangerous?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And if I had anything to invest anywhere we all know where I would
invest it!
Paul
btw has anybody ever managed to read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'? I
have tried a few times and just can't get through it....

On 18/02/2013 14:27, Hilary Jones wrote:
> If it's any consolation they keep putting Paul's in mine. Perhaps they think he's offering some foreign investment opportunity?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:24
> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
>>
>> How innocent am I?
>>
>> From: Pamela Bain
>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
>> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>>
>> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
>> liz williams replied:
>>> or dangerous?
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I couldn't read it either, and still can't. It just fell open at that page.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)


 

And if I had anything to invest anywhere we all know where I would
invest it!
Paul
btw has anybody ever managed to read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'? I
have tried a few times and just can't get through it....

On 18/02/2013 14:27, Hilary Jones wrote:
> If it's any consolation they keep putting Paul's in mine. Perhaps they think he's offering some foreign investment opportunity?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:24
> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
>>
>> How innocent am I?
>>
>> From: Pamela Bain
>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
>> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>>
>> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
>> liz williams replied:
>>> or dangerous?
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I have just orderd a copy from Amazon, price £4.50, I'll let you both know how I get on with it!

Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I couldn't read it either, and still can't. It just fell open at that page.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:52
> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
>
>  
>
> And if I had anything to invest anywhere we all know where I would
> invest it!
> Paul
> btw has anybody ever managed to read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'? I
> have tried a few times and just can't get through it....
>
> On 18/02/2013 14:27, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > If it's any consolation they keep putting Paul's in mine. Perhaps they think he's offering some foreign investment opportunity?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:24
> > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> >> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
> >>
> >> How innocent am I?
> >>
> >> From: Pamela Bain
> >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
> >> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> >>
> >> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
> >>
> >> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Eileen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
> >> liz williams replied:
> >>> or dangerous?
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Couple of very dense pages a day, I'd suggest. Or do as I did, just let it fall open - I was looking for info on Cis. The picture is on p273 and it's the first one of that type I've looked at and thought 'it could be him'. 



________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 15:23
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)

 

I have just orderd a copy from Amazon, price £4.50, I'll let you both know how I get on with it!

Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I couldn't read it either, and still can't. It just fell open at that page.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:52
> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
>
>  
>
> And if I had anything to invest anywhere we all know where I would
> invest it!
> Paul
> btw has anybody ever managed to read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'? I
> have tried a few times and just can't get through it....
>
> On 18/02/2013 14:27, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > If it's any consolation they keep putting Paul's in mine. Perhaps they think he's offering some foreign investment opportunity?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:24
> > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> >> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
> >>
> >> How innocent am I?
> >>
> >> From: Pamela Bain
> >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
> >> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> >>
> >> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
> >>
> >> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Eileen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
> >> liz williams replied:
> >>> or dangerous?
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Oh, right. Nothing could be worse than Andrew Hadfield's biograghy of Edmund Spencer. I had to call it quits in the end as every time I ended up with a headache. And to make it worse it was like looking for a needle in a haystack, there was so much filler.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Couple of very dense pages a day, I'd suggest. Or do as I did, just let it fall open - I was looking for info on Cis. The picture is on p273 and it's the first one of that type I've looked at and thought 'it could be him'. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 15:23
> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>
>  
>
> I have just orderd a copy from Amazon, price £4.50, I'll let you both know how I get on with it!
>
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I couldn't read it either, and still can't. It just fell open at that page.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To:
> > Cc: paul.bale@
> > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:52
> > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > And if I had anything to invest anywhere we all know where I would
> > invest it!
> > Paul
> > btw has anybody ever managed to read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'? I
> > have tried a few times and just can't get through it....
> >
> > On 18/02/2013 14:27, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > If it's any consolation they keep putting Paul's in mine. Perhaps they think he's offering some foreign investment opportunity?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:24
> > > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > >> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
> > >>
> > >> How innocent am I?
> > >>
> > >> From: Pamela Bain
> > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
> > >> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> > >>
> > >> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
> > >>
> > >> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Eileen wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
> > >> liz williams replied:
> > >>> or dangerous?
> > >> Carol responds:
> > >>
> > >> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
> > >>
> > >> Carol
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Carol

The painting I was referring to was Millais' Cherry Ripe as we were discussing Eileen's nickname. How ironic that Millais should be responsible for both paintings. However, the other painting by Millais titled The Two Princes Edward and Richard in the Tower was sentimentalised image of childhood pitched to tug at the heartstrings. Mawkish and sentimental as these images are they are used without thought to illustrate books, both fiction and non-fiction. Millais' motivation in 1878 was to make money and was a far cry from the original intentions of the PreRaphaelites. That image has more to do with Shakespeare's interpretation of the scene and the effect is of one layer on top of another. The publishers are just doing the same today by choosing over sentimentalised images to promote their wares.
Elaine

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "ellrosa1452" wrote:
> >
> > Or Millais' Painting perhaps
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Can anyone even count the number of books that have that sentimental painting of two pretty boys on the cover? Either that or the Society of Antiquaries portrait of Richard (before or after the cleaning). The book designers should use a little imagination! (Of course, there are worse paintings of the supposed murder victims, which they understandably chose not to use.)
>
> Carol
>

I read that Millais used his daughter as a model for one of the boys. One of them does look rather girlish...Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol
>
> The painting I was referring to was Millais' Cherry Ripe as we were discussing Eileen's nickname. How ironic that Millais should be responsible for both paintings. However, the other painting by Millais titled The Two Princes Edward and Richard in the Tower was sentimentalised image of childhood pitched to tug at the heartstrings. Mawkish and sentimental as these images are they are used without thought to illustrate books, both fiction and non-fiction. Millais' motivation in 1878 was to make money and was a far cry from the original intentions of the PreRaphaelites. That image has more to do with Shakespeare's interpretation of the scene and the effect is of one layer on top of another. The publishers are just doing the same today by choosing over sentimentalised images to promote their wares.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > "ellrosa1452" wrote:
> > >
> > > Or Millais' Painting perhaps
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Can anyone even count the number of books that have that sentimental painting of two pretty boys on the cover? Either that or the Society of Antiquaries portrait of Richard (before or after the cleaning). The book designers should use a little imagination! (Of course, there are worse paintings of the supposed murder victims, which they understandably chose not to use.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Elaine wrote:
>
> Hi Carol
>
> The painting I was referring to was Millais' Cherry Ripe as we were discussing Eileen's nickname. How ironic that Millais should be responsible for both paintings. However, the other painting by Millais titled The Two Princes Edward and Richard in the Tower was sentimentalised image of childhood pitched to tug at the heartstrings. Mawkish and sentimental as these images are they are used without thought to illustrate books, both fiction and non-fiction. Millais' motivation in 1878 was to make money and was a far cry from the original intentions of the PreRaphaelites. That image has more to do with Shakespeare's interpretation of the scene and the effect is of one layer on top of another. The publishers are just doing the same today by choosing over sentimentalised images to promote their wares.

Carol responds:

Sorry about that! I wondered how *the* Millais painting got into the discussion of Eileen's nickname! I just have the "Princes" painting on the brain because it's on the cover of half my books on Richard, including Audrey Williamson's book, which I'm rereading, and (I think) the book I'm hoping arrives in today's mail, "Royal Blood." I've reached the point where I forget that Millais painted anything else!

Carol

The very best of luck. A large bottle of gin might help you get through
it, though it defeated me both with and without alcohol!
Dense is the word I would use to describe it!
Paul

On 18/02/2013 15:23, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> I have just orderd a copy from Amazon, price £4.50, I'll let you both know how I get on with it!
>
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> I couldn't read it either, and still can't. It just fell open at that page.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Cc: paul.bale@...
>> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:52
>> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> And if I had anything to invest anywhere we all know where I would
>> invest it!
>> Paul
>> btw has anybody ever managed to read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'? I
>> have tried a few times and just can't get through it....
>>
>> On 18/02/2013 14:27, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>> If it's any consolation they keep putting Paul's in mine. Perhaps they think he's offering some foreign investment opportunity?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:24
>>> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>>>> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
>>>>
>>>> How innocent am I?
>>>>
>>>> From: Pamela Bain
>>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
>>>> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
>>>>
>>>> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eileen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
>>>> liz williams replied:
>>>>> or dangerous?
>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
>>>>
>>>> Carol
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi,

Back again.
I have read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'. The subject is definitely worthy of study, but unfortunately this particular book is IMO largely tosh. A lot of it is actually about astrology, and how contemporary would have viewed the various royal candidates based on their horoscopes; unfortunately Hughes has utterly misunderstood just about every aspect of medieval astrology so that all his conclusions are frankly rubbish. This book seems to be another of his ingenious and far-fetched attempts to prove Richard a villain; his previous book on Richard III's religion also stretched his evidence to breaking point. A great pity for an academic historian.
Marie

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, right. Nothing could be worse than Andrew Hadfield's biograghy of Edmund Spencer. I had to call it quits in the end as every time I ended up with a headache. And to make it worse it was like looking for a needle in a haystack, there was so much filler.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Couple of very dense pages a day, I'd suggest. Or do as I did, just let it fall open - I was looking for info on Cis. The picture is on p273 and it's the first one of that type I've looked at and thought 'it could be him'. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 15:23
> > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> >
> >  
> >
> > I have just orderd a copy from Amazon, price £4.50, I'll let you both know how I get on with it!
> >
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I couldn't read it either, and still can't. It just fell open at that page.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To:
> > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:52
> > > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > And if I had anything to invest anywhere we all know where I would
> > > invest it!
> > > Paul
> > > btw has anybody ever managed to read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'? I
> > > have tried a few times and just can't get through it....
> > >
> > > On 18/02/2013 14:27, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > If it's any consolation they keep putting Paul's in mine. Perhaps they think he's offering some foreign investment opportunity?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:24
> > > > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > > >> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
> > > >>
> > > >> How innocent am I?
> > > >>
> > > >> From: Pamela Bain
> > > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
> > > >> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> > > >>
> > > >> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
> > > >>
> > > >> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Eileen wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
> > > >> liz williams replied:
> > > >>> or dangerous?
> > > >> Carol responds:
> > > >>
> > > >> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
> > > >>
> > > >> Carol
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Nice to have you back.
 
I agree, I only stumbled on the picture. I have to say it's pretty dreadful when you get to the plotting Richard, which is sad because some of the bits, like the description of Picquigny, are actually quite good.
 
I can only equate it with Sean Cunningham - which is good for the illustrations, but dreadfully biased against 'our hero'.  H 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 12:28
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)

 

Hi,

Back again.
I have read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'. The subject is definitely worthy of study, but unfortunately this particular book is IMO largely tosh. A lot of it is actually about astrology, and how contemporary would have viewed the various royal candidates based on their horoscopes; unfortunately Hughes has utterly misunderstood just about every aspect of medieval astrology so that all his conclusions are frankly rubbish. This book seems to be another of his ingenious and far-fetched attempts to prove Richard a villain; his previous book on Richard III's religion also stretched his evidence to breaking point. A great pity for an academic historian.
Marie

--- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>
> Oh, right. Nothing could be worse than Andrew Hadfield's biograghy of Edmund Spencer. I had to call it quits in the end as every time I ended up with a headache. And to make it worse it was like looking for a needle in a haystack, there was so much filler.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Couple of very dense pages a day, I'd suggest. Or do as I did, just let it fall open - I was looking for info on Cis. The picture is on p273 and it's the first one of that type I've looked at and thought 'it could be him'. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 15:23
> > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> >
> >  
> >
> > I have just orderd a copy from Amazon, price £4.50, I'll let you both know how I get on with it!
> >
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I couldn't read it either, and still can't. It just fell open at that page.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To:
> > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:52
> > > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > >
> > > And if I had anything to invest anywhere we all know where I would
> > > invest it!
> > > Paul
> > > btw has anybody ever managed to read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'? I
> > > have tried a few times and just can't get through it....
> > >
> > > On 18/02/2013 14:27, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > If it's any consolation they keep putting Paul's in mine. Perhaps they think he's offering some foreign investment opportunity?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:24
> > > > Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for all the suggestions as to why Yahoo think the most appropriate place for my messages are in the junk mail box.although I still stand by my supposition that its because they are crap.....:0) Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > > >> I just think of the Aussie chocolate bar ....
> > > >>
> > > >> How innocent am I?
> > > >>
> > > >> From: Pamela Bain
> > > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:30
> > > >> Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)
> > > >>
> > > >> Ha ha....... I thought the same thing Carol, and it certainly made me smile!
> > > >>
> > > >> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Eileen wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Is Yahoo implying my messages are crappy?? :0)
> > > >> liz williams replied:
> > > >>> or dangerous?
> > > >> Carol responds:
> > > >>
> > > >> I wouldn't put it past Yahoo to detect something sinister in "cherryripe." For me, it always suggests Thomas Campion's poem.
> > > >>
> > > >> Carol
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Marie wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Back again.
> I have read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'. The subject is definitely worthy of study, but unfortunately this particular book is IMO largely tosh. A lot of it is actually about astrology, and how contemporary would have viewed the various royal candidates based on their horoscopes; unfortunately Hughes has utterly misunderstood just about every aspect of medieval astrology so that all his conclusions are frankly rubbish. This book seems to be another of his ingenious and far-fetched attempts to prove Richard a villain; his previous book on Richard III's religion also stretched his evidence to breaking point. A great pity for an academic historian.

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. Welcome back. Does Hughes by any chance cite Rous as an authority, and, if so, does he confuse Richard's ostensible rising sign (we have no extant horoscopes with this information and I doubt that Rous did, either) with his sun sign as Pollard does? (Pollard tries to prove that Richard's "birth sign" really was Scorpio.) In other words, does Hughes claim that this supposed connection with Scorpio (whether or not he distinguishes between sun signs and rising signs) "proves" Richard's supposed villainy? (Rous, of course, was comparing Richard to a scorpion and his Libra sun sign would not have served that purpose.)

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't read our previous discussions or is unfamiliar with astrology, a rising sign depends on the hour of birth, a detail that Rous was unlikely to know but could easily fake.

I haven't read Hughes and have no desire to do so based on what I've heard so far.

Carol

Oh dear, that makes me a villain, I am Scorpio rising.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)



Marie wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Back again.
> I have read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'. The subject is definitely worthy of study, but unfortunately this particular book is IMO largely tosh. A lot of it is actually about astrology, and how contemporary would have viewed the various royal candidates based on their horoscopes; unfortunately Hughes has utterly misunderstood just about every aspect of medieval astrology so that all his conclusions are frankly rubbish. This book seems to be another of his ingenious and far-fetched attempts to prove Richard a villain; his previous book on Richard III's religion also stretched his evidence to breaking point. A great pity for an academic historian.

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. Welcome back. Does Hughes by any chance cite Rous as an authority, and, if so, does he confuse Richard's ostensible rising sign (we have no extant horoscopes with this information and I doubt that Rous did, either) with his sun sign as Pollard does? (Pollard tries to prove that Richard's "birth sign" really was Scorpio.) In other words, does Hughes claim that this supposed connection with Scorpio (whether or not he distinguishes between sun signs and rising signs) "proves" Richard's supposed villainy? (Rous, of course, was comparing Richard to a scorpion and his Libra sun sign would not have served that purpose.)

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't read our previous discussions or is unfamiliar with astrology, a rising sign depends on the hour of birth, a detail that Rous was unlikely to know but could easily fake.

I haven't read Hughes and have no desire to do so based on what I've heard so far.

Carol

Pamela Bain wrote:

"Oh dear, that makes me a villain, I am Scorpio rising."

Well, you do support Richard as the rightful king and not Edward of
Warwick...
Doug

Richard, and even more if he was Scorpio rising!

On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:45 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:



Pamela Bain wrote:

"Oh dear, that makes me a villain, I am Scorpio rising."

Well, you do support Richard as the rightful king and not Edward of
Warwick...
Doug

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh dear, that makes me a villain, I am Scorpio rising.

Carol responds:

You'll love them implications of the whole passage, then. I can't find the anti-Christ part offhand, but here's the famous part:

"Richard was born at Fotheringhay in Northamptonshire, retained within his mother's womb for two years and emerging with teeth and hair to his shoulders. He was born at the Feast of the Eleven Thousand Virgins. At his nativity Scorpio was in the ascendant, which is the sign of a house of Mars. And like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail."

Aside from the context in which it appears (whatever Rous may have thought, two years in his mother's womb is impossible) and another error that Marie has pointed out (the Feast of the Eleven Thousand Virgins, which celebrates the mass martyrdom of eleven thousand innocent young women, was actually *George's* birthday), Rous could not have used Richard's actual sun sign (Libra) to make this point, so he used an actual or invented rising sign to make him look warlike and treacherous. (It's okay, Pam. We know there's no basis for these associations, whatever his actual rising sign may have been.)

Interestingly, we do have a record (perhaps not entirely accurate) of the birth times of some of Richard's brothers and sisters, but Richard's is not recorded. Also, Caroline Halsted, a Victorian supporter of Richard, actually cited this paragraph as an enemy's testimony that Richard was good looking (instead of "smooth front," her translation reads "mild in countenance," which may or may not be more accurate. "Front" in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries meant "forehead," which may be the meaning here--I don't know whose translation it is or when it was made).

Sorry if this is incoherent, but I'm somewhat distracted by the fact that *it's snowing in Tucson!*--not just a few flakes but lots of big fluffy ones!

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: E mails (Was Richard at Bosworth,
The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush ( gory)


> Rous could not have used Richard's actual sun sign (Libra) to make this
> point,

Especially as the classic description of the Libra type is "somebody who
spends ten minutes every morning deciding which sock to put on first."

Carol earlier:
> > Rous could not have used Richard's actual sun sign (Libra) to make this point,

"Claire M Jordan" responded:

> Especially as the classic description of the Libra type is "somebody who spends ten minutes every morning deciding which sock to put on first."

Carol again:

I was thinking more of the scales of Justice, which Rous would find inappropriate to the scorpion/anti-Christ image he was trying to convey in the Historia Regum Angliae (History of the Kings of England) though it would have fit nicely in the unaltered English version of the Rous Roll if that had included astrological references.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Back again.
> > I have read 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy'. The subject is definitely worthy of study, but unfortunately this particular book is IMO largely tosh. A lot of it is actually about astrology, and how contemporary would have viewed the various royal candidates based on their horoscopes; unfortunately Hughes has utterly misunderstood just about every aspect of medieval astrology so that all his conclusions are frankly rubbish. This book seems to be another of his ingenious and far-fetched attempts to prove Richard a villain; his previous book on Richard III's religion also stretched his evidence to breaking point. A great pity for an academic historian.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Marie. Welcome back. Does Hughes by any chance cite Rous as an authority, and, if so, does he confuse Richard's ostensible rising sign (we have no extant horoscopes with this information and I doubt that Rous did, either) with his sun sign as Pollard does? (Pollard tries to prove that Richard's "birth sign" really was Scorpio.) In other words, does Hughes claim that this supposed connection with Scorpio (whether or not he distinguishes between sun signs and rising signs) "proves" Richard's supposed villainy? (Rous, of course, was comparing Richard to a scorpion and his Libra sun sign would not have served that purpose.)

Marie replies:
Yes. It's so bad that Hughes - as far as I recall - didn't notice that Rous gave the wrong birthday for Richard. And he certainly didn't understand what Scorpio rising meant; he thought it was a reference to the sign ruling the time of year he was born (ie his sun sign or "birth sign"), and remarked that with the difference in calendar, etc, his birthday would not have been far off the start of Scorpio.

Marie wrote:
> Yes. It's so bad that Hughes - as far as I recall - didn't notice that Rous gave the wrong birthday for Richard. And he certainly didn't understand what Scorpio rising meant; he thought it was a reference to the sign ruling the time of year he was born (ie his sun sign or "birth sign"), and remarked that with the difference in calendar, etc, his birthday would not have been far off the start of Scorpio.

Carol responds:

Which is exactly what Pollard said. I don't know which book came first, but it sounds as if one was a source for the other.

Carol