"Ricardian Recorder" news
"Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-23 23:09:41
The American R III Society forum has posted the newest issue of the Ricardian Recorder to the forum website. (Whether that's the same thing as the "Ricardian Register," I don't know.)
I noticed two items of special interest. One is that Richard will be buried with a replica of his crown since the original was lost; the other is that some unidentified person has offered to make a replica of his body so that we can see how he would have looked when he was dressed. I would post a link, but you have to be a member of the American branch to read the posts on that forum.
The article also stated that the woman whose unarticulated skeleton was found during the dig has been reburied where she was found because the archaeologists didn't have a permit to exhume her. And the Who Do You Think You Are? exhibition at Olympia (London) on February 23 will apparently feature an exhibit called "Discovering Richard III" with lectures by Dr. Turi King and Professor Kevin Schurer of Leicester University (DNA experts). I didn't see the exhibition listed on the website, http://www.whodoyouthinkyouarelive.com/about-show/our-exhibitors but maybe someone else can find it.
Carol
I noticed two items of special interest. One is that Richard will be buried with a replica of his crown since the original was lost; the other is that some unidentified person has offered to make a replica of his body so that we can see how he would have looked when he was dressed. I would post a link, but you have to be a member of the American branch to read the posts on that forum.
The article also stated that the woman whose unarticulated skeleton was found during the dig has been reburied where she was found because the archaeologists didn't have a permit to exhume her. And the Who Do You Think You Are? exhibition at Olympia (London) on February 23 will apparently feature an exhibit called "Discovering Richard III" with lectures by Dr. Turi King and Professor Kevin Schurer of Leicester University (DNA experts). I didn't see the exhibition listed on the website, http://www.whodoyouthinkyouarelive.com/about-show/our-exhibitors but maybe someone else can find it.
Carol
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 00:09:48
Hi Carol
The Ricardian Recorder is the monthly newsletter that I send out to the
Branches & Groups UK & Overseas. The Ricardian Register (too many RR's
lol) is the magazine of the American Branch.
The information in the Recorder came from a member who was present at
the talk given by John A-H. Another nice touch, as well as the crown is
that Richard's coffin will be made by Michael Ibsen.
Jac
In message <kgbi7l+v4l9@...>, justcarol67
<justcarol67@...> writes
>The American R III Society forum has posted the newest issue of the
>Ricardian Recorder to the forum website. (Whether that's the same thing
>as the "Ricardian Register," I don't know.)
>
>I noticed two items of special interest. One is that Richard will be
>buried with a replica of his crown since the original was lost; the
>other is that some unidentified person has offered to make a replica of
>his body so that we can see how he would have looked when he was
>dressed. I would post a link, but you have to be a member of the
>American branch to read the posts on that forum.
>
>The article also stated that the woman whose unarticulated skeleton was
>found during the dig has been reburied where she was found because the
>archaeologists didn't have a permit to exhume her. And the Who Do You
>Think You Are? exhibition at Olympia (London) on February 23 will
>apparently feature an exhibit called "Discovering Richard III" with
>lectures by Dr. Turi King and Professor Kevin Schurer of Leicester
>University (DNA experts). I didn't see the exhibition listed on the
>website,
>http://www.whodoyouthinkyouarelive.com/about-show/our-exhibitors but
>maybe someone else can find it.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
--
The Ricardian Recorder is the monthly newsletter that I send out to the
Branches & Groups UK & Overseas. The Ricardian Register (too many RR's
lol) is the magazine of the American Branch.
The information in the Recorder came from a member who was present at
the talk given by John A-H. Another nice touch, as well as the crown is
that Richard's coffin will be made by Michael Ibsen.
Jac
In message <kgbi7l+v4l9@...>, justcarol67
<justcarol67@...> writes
>The American R III Society forum has posted the newest issue of the
>Ricardian Recorder to the forum website. (Whether that's the same thing
>as the "Ricardian Register," I don't know.)
>
>I noticed two items of special interest. One is that Richard will be
>buried with a replica of his crown since the original was lost; the
>other is that some unidentified person has offered to make a replica of
>his body so that we can see how he would have looked when he was
>dressed. I would post a link, but you have to be a member of the
>American branch to read the posts on that forum.
>
>The article also stated that the woman whose unarticulated skeleton was
>found during the dig has been reburied where she was found because the
>archaeologists didn't have a permit to exhume her. And the Who Do You
>Think You Are? exhibition at Olympia (London) on February 23 will
>apparently feature an exhibit called "Discovering Richard III" with
>lectures by Dr. Turi King and Professor Kevin Schurer of Leicester
>University (DNA experts). I didn't see the exhibition listed on the
>website,
>http://www.whodoyouthinkyouarelive.com/about-show/our-exhibitors but
>maybe someone else can find it.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
--
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 00:17:19
Well, I can't think of anyone better qualified to make the coffin, can you? There 's going to be a run on white roses at the time of the re-interment too, so I hope the Leicester florists get sufficient warning.
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 24 Feb 2013, at 00:08, jacqui <jacqui@...> wrote:
> Hi Carol
>
> The Ricardian Recorder is the monthly newsletter that I send out to the
> Branches & Groups UK & Overseas. The Ricardian Register (too many RR's
> lol) is the magazine of the American Branch.
>
> The information in the Recorder came from a member who was present at
> the talk given by John A-H. Another nice touch, as well as the crown is
> that Richard's coffin will be made by Michael Ibsen.
>
> Jac
>
> In message kgbi7l+v4l9@...>, justcarol67
> justcarol67@...> writes
> >The American R III Society forum has posted the newest issue of the
> >Ricardian Recorder to the forum website. (Whether that's the same thing
> >as the "Ricardian Register," I don't know.)
> >
> >I noticed two items of special interest. One is that Richard will be
> >buried with a replica of his crown since the original was lost; the
> >other is that some unidentified person has offered to make a replica of
> >his body so that we can see how he would have looked when he was
> >dressed. I would post a link, but you have to be a member of the
> >American branch to read the posts on that forum.
> >
> >The article also stated that the woman whose unarticulated skeleton was
> >found during the dig has been reburied where she was found because the
> >archaeologists didn't have a permit to exhume her. And the Who Do You
> >Think You Are? exhibition at Olympia (London) on February 23 will
> >apparently feature an exhibit called "Discovering Richard III" with
> >lectures by Dr. Turi King and Professor Kevin Schurer of Leicester
> >University (DNA experts). I didn't see the exhibition listed on the
> >website,
> >http://www.whodoyouthinkyouarelive.com/about-show/our-exhibitors but
> >maybe someone else can find it.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 24 Feb 2013, at 00:08, jacqui <jacqui@...> wrote:
> Hi Carol
>
> The Ricardian Recorder is the monthly newsletter that I send out to the
> Branches & Groups UK & Overseas. The Ricardian Register (too many RR's
> lol) is the magazine of the American Branch.
>
> The information in the Recorder came from a member who was present at
> the talk given by John A-H. Another nice touch, as well as the crown is
> that Richard's coffin will be made by Michael Ibsen.
>
> Jac
>
> In message kgbi7l+v4l9@...>, justcarol67
> justcarol67@...> writes
> >The American R III Society forum has posted the newest issue of the
> >Ricardian Recorder to the forum website. (Whether that's the same thing
> >as the "Ricardian Register," I don't know.)
> >
> >I noticed two items of special interest. One is that Richard will be
> >buried with a replica of his crown since the original was lost; the
> >other is that some unidentified person has offered to make a replica of
> >his body so that we can see how he would have looked when he was
> >dressed. I would post a link, but you have to be a member of the
> >American branch to read the posts on that forum.
> >
> >The article also stated that the woman whose unarticulated skeleton was
> >found during the dig has been reburied where she was found because the
> >archaeologists didn't have a permit to exhume her. And the Who Do You
> >Think You Are? exhibition at Olympia (London) on February 23 will
> >apparently feature an exhibit called "Discovering Richard III" with
> >lectures by Dr. Turi King and Professor Kevin Schurer of Leicester
> >University (DNA experts). I didn't see the exhibition listed on the
> >website,
> >http://www.whodoyouthinkyouarelive.com/about-show/our-exhibitors but
> >maybe someone else can find it.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 00:23:02
jacqui wrote:
>
> Hi Carol
>
> The Ricardian Recorder is the monthly newsletter that I send out to the Branches & Groups UK & Overseas. The Ricardian Register (too many RR's lol) is the magazine of the American Branch.
>
> The information in the Recorder came from a member who was present at the talk given by John A-H. Another nice touch, as well as the crown is that Richard's coffin will be made by Michael Ibsen.
>
> Jac
Carol responds:
Thanks for clearing that up. I was obviously confused, probably because I saw it on the American branch website adn kenw that the Register was their magazine.
I thought that Michael Ibsen was a furniture maker. He does metal work, too? That's wonderful. What will he be using as a model for the crown, do you know?
Carol
>
> Hi Carol
>
> The Ricardian Recorder is the monthly newsletter that I send out to the Branches & Groups UK & Overseas. The Ricardian Register (too many RR's lol) is the magazine of the American Branch.
>
> The information in the Recorder came from a member who was present at the talk given by John A-H. Another nice touch, as well as the crown is that Richard's coffin will be made by Michael Ibsen.
>
> Jac
Carol responds:
Thanks for clearing that up. I was obviously confused, probably because I saw it on the American branch website adn kenw that the Register was their magazine.
I thought that Michael Ibsen was a furniture maker. He does metal work, too? That's wonderful. What will he be using as a model for the crown, do you know?
Carol
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 00:26:39
Carol earlier:
>[snip]
> I thought that Michael Ibsen was a furniture maker. He does metal work, too? That's wonderful. What will he be using as a model for the crown, do you know?
Carol again:
Oops! Didn't read that carefully enough. It makes sense that Michael is making the coffin, a very moving touch. I somehow misread Jac's words and thought that he was making the crown!
Carol
>[snip]
> I thought that Michael Ibsen was a furniture maker. He does metal work, too? That's wonderful. What will he be using as a model for the crown, do you know?
Carol again:
Oops! Didn't read that carefully enough. It makes sense that Michael is making the coffin, a very moving touch. I somehow misread Jac's words and thought that he was making the crown!
Carol
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 00:28:48
From: Jan Mulrenan
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Well, I can't think of anyone better qualified to make the coffin, can
> you? There 's going to be a run on white roses at the time of the
> re-interment too, so I hope the Leicester florists get sufficient warning.
I think the idea of burying him crowned is wonderful - they're going all out
to make up for the way his body was handled the last time around. 20-odd
years ago, a friend said to me that in the very far future only two kings of
England will be remembered: "There will be Arthur, and there will be
Richard." I suspected that Canute, the Conqueror, Fat Harry, Elizabeth I
and Victoria at least would also be remembered, but if they bury Richard in
a gold crown he'll be identifiable as a king for ten thousand years even if
history itself is lost - like the king at Sutton Hoo.
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Well, I can't think of anyone better qualified to make the coffin, can
> you? There 's going to be a run on white roses at the time of the
> re-interment too, so I hope the Leicester florists get sufficient warning.
I think the idea of burying him crowned is wonderful - they're going all out
to make up for the way his body was handled the last time around. 20-odd
years ago, a friend said to me that in the very far future only two kings of
England will be remembered: "There will be Arthur, and there will be
Richard." I suspected that Canute, the Conqueror, Fat Harry, Elizabeth I
and Victoria at least would also be remembered, but if they bury Richard in
a gold crown he'll be identifiable as a king for ten thousand years even if
history itself is lost - like the king at Sutton Hoo.
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 01:46:51
Only two remembered; one who reigned for two years, and another who never existed. So much for the English having a sense of history.
Surely Alfred will be remembered as the most important.
William the Conqueror (1688 edition) was the last of any significance. I wonder if they buried him in his wig?
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 0:40
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
From: Jan Mulrenan
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Well, I can't think of anyone better qualified to make the coffin, can
> you? There 's going to be a run on white roses at the time of the
> re-interment too, so I hope the Leicester florists get sufficient warning.
I think the idea of burying him crowned is wonderful - they're going all out
to make up for the way his body was handled the last time around. 20-odd
years ago, a friend said to me that in the very far future only two kings of
England will be remembered: "There will be Arthur, and there will be
Richard." I suspected that Canute, the Conqueror, Fat Harry, Elizabeth I
and Victoria at least would also be remembered, but if they bury Richard in
a gold crown he'll be identifiable as a king for ten thousand years even if
history itself is lost - like the king at Sutton Hoo.
Surely Alfred will be remembered as the most important.
William the Conqueror (1688 edition) was the last of any significance. I wonder if they buried him in his wig?
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 0:40
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
From: Jan Mulrenan
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Well, I can't think of anyone better qualified to make the coffin, can
> you? There 's going to be a run on white roses at the time of the
> re-interment too, so I hope the Leicester florists get sufficient warning.
I think the idea of burying him crowned is wonderful - they're going all out
to make up for the way his body was handled the last time around. 20-odd
years ago, a friend said to me that in the very far future only two kings of
England will be remembered: "There will be Arthur, and there will be
Richard." I suspected that Canute, the Conqueror, Fat Harry, Elizabeth I
and Victoria at least would also be remembered, but if they bury Richard in
a gold crown he'll be identifiable as a king for ten thousand years even if
history itself is lost - like the king at Sutton Hoo.
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 01:51:41
From: david rayner
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Only two remembered; one who reigned for two years, and another who never
> existed. So much for the English having a sense of history.
Actually Arthur almost certainly did exist - we just dont know who he was.
Arthur seems to be a title or a nickname, applied to one of several named
candidates but we don't know which one. Like looking for Hotspur without a
written record to tell us which prince that nickname applied to.
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Only two remembered; one who reigned for two years, and another who never
> existed. So much for the English having a sense of history.
Actually Arthur almost certainly did exist - we just dont know who he was.
Arthur seems to be a title or a nickname, applied to one of several named
candidates but we don't know which one. Like looking for Hotspur without a
written record to tell us which prince that nickname applied to.
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 08:58:09
I thought the application for a permit from Richard Buckley allowed for up to six sets of remains to be exhumed? The permit/licence allows for the exhumation.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>...........................
> ....................
> The article also stated that the woman whose unarticulated skeleton was found during the dig has been reburied where she was found because the archaeologists didn't have a permit to exhume her.
..............................................>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>...........................
> ....................
> The article also stated that the woman whose unarticulated skeleton was found during the dig has been reburied where she was found because the archaeologists didn't have a permit to exhume her.
..............................................>
> Carol
>
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 17:20:09
colyngbourne wrote:
>
> I thought the application for a permit from Richard Buckley allowed for up to six sets of remains to be exhumed? The permit/licence allows for the exhumation.
Carol responds:
I'm only reporting what I read in the "Ricardian Recorder." The article is by a Society member named Ashley Mantle who attended and took notes during a talk by John Ashdown-Hill. Ashley says, "The woman who was found in the cloister, who's [sic] identity is unknown, was reburied where she was found due to the archaeologists only having the 'rights' to dig up Richard." She also reports John A-H's suggestion that the woman's bones might have been moved there by Robert Herrick during the creation of his garden.
I had thought the same thing (that the permit allowed up to six exhumations; I'm only repeating what Ashley reported that John A-H told the London R III Society in his talk (no date given).
If Ashley is a member of this forum, I'm sure that she can comment further, or someone else who attended the talk can clarify the matter for us.
Carol
>
> I thought the application for a permit from Richard Buckley allowed for up to six sets of remains to be exhumed? The permit/licence allows for the exhumation.
Carol responds:
I'm only reporting what I read in the "Ricardian Recorder." The article is by a Society member named Ashley Mantle who attended and took notes during a talk by John Ashdown-Hill. Ashley says, "The woman who was found in the cloister, who's [sic] identity is unknown, was reburied where she was found due to the archaeologists only having the 'rights' to dig up Richard." She also reports John A-H's suggestion that the woman's bones might have been moved there by Robert Herrick during the creation of his garden.
I had thought the same thing (that the permit allowed up to six exhumations; I'm only repeating what Ashley reported that John A-H told the London R III Society in his talk (no date given).
If Ashley is a member of this forum, I'm sure that she can comment further, or someone else who attended the talk can clarify the matter for us.
Carol
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 19:34:54
And if Arthur had existed (or whoever the real person is he was based upon) he wasn't English at all but British/Welsh and fighting the people who became the English.
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 1:46
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
Only two remembered; one who reigned for two years, and another who never existed. So much for the English having a sense of history.
Surely Alfred will be remembered as the most important.
William the Conqueror (1688 edition) was the last of any significance. I wonder if they buried him in his wig?
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 0:40
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
From: Jan Mulrenan
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Well, I can't think of anyone better qualified to make the coffin, can
> you? There 's going to be a run on white roses at the time of the
> re-interment too, so I hope the Leicester florists get sufficient warning.
I think the idea of burying him crowned is wonderful - they're going all out
to make up for the way his body was handled the last time around. 20-odd
years ago, a friend said to me that in the very far future only two kings of
England will be remembered: "There will be Arthur, and there will be
Richard." I suspected that Canute, the Conqueror, Fat Harry, Elizabeth I
and Victoria at least would also be remembered, but if they bury Richard in
a gold crown he'll be identifiable as a king for ten thousand years even if
history itself is lost - like the king at Sutton Hoo.
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 1:46
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
Only two remembered; one who reigned for two years, and another who never existed. So much for the English having a sense of history.
Surely Alfred will be remembered as the most important.
William the Conqueror (1688 edition) was the last of any significance. I wonder if they buried him in his wig?
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 0:40
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
From: Jan Mulrenan
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Well, I can't think of anyone better qualified to make the coffin, can
> you? There 's going to be a run on white roses at the time of the
> re-interment too, so I hope the Leicester florists get sufficient warning.
I think the idea of burying him crowned is wonderful - they're going all out
to make up for the way his body was handled the last time around. 20-odd
years ago, a friend said to me that in the very far future only two kings of
England will be remembered: "There will be Arthur, and there will be
Richard." I suspected that Canute, the Conqueror, Fat Harry, Elizabeth I
and Victoria at least would also be remembered, but if they bury Richard in
a gold crown he'll be identifiable as a king for ten thousand years even if
history itself is lost - like the king at Sutton Hoo.
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-24 19:48:46
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> And if Arthur had existed (or whoever the real person is he was based
> upon) he wasn't English at all but British/Welsh and fighting the people
> who became the English.
That's a matter of definition. As I understand it genetic tests have shown
that the English are just as British/Celtic as the Welsh. Only in the west
of Ireland are there any purely British/Celtic populations - everybody else
in Britain (recent immigrants aside) is a mixture of original Britons and
some kind of Norse or Germanic blood - different Norse or Germanic blood
depending on where you are. The difference between the English and what we
nowadays think of as the Celtic countries is that the English and the
Lowland Scots lost their original language and the Welsh and Highlanders etc
didn't.
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> And if Arthur had existed (or whoever the real person is he was based
> upon) he wasn't English at all but British/Welsh and fighting the people
> who became the English.
That's a matter of definition. As I understand it genetic tests have shown
that the English are just as British/Celtic as the Welsh. Only in the west
of Ireland are there any purely British/Celtic populations - everybody else
in Britain (recent immigrants aside) is a mixture of original Britons and
some kind of Norse or Germanic blood - different Norse or Germanic blood
depending on where you are. The difference between the English and what we
nowadays think of as the Celtic countries is that the English and the
Lowland Scots lost their original language and the Welsh and Highlanders etc
didn't.
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 00:21:27
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
>
>
> > And if Arthur had existed (or whoever the real person is he was based
> > upon) he wasn't English at all but British/Welsh and fighting the people
> > who became the English.
>
> That's a matter of definition. As I understand it genetic tests have shown
> that the English are just as British/Celtic as the Welsh. Only in the west
> of Ireland are there any purely British/Celtic populations - everybody else
> in Britain (recent immigrants aside) is a mixture of original Britons and
> some kind of Norse or Germanic blood - different Norse or Germanic blood
> depending on where you are. The difference between the English and what we
> nowadays think of as the Celtic countries is that the English and the
> Lowland Scots lost their original language and the Welsh and Highlanders etc
> didn't.
>
Marie:
Everything you say is true, but that still doesn't make Arthur English (ie Anglo-Saxon).
>
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
>
>
> > And if Arthur had existed (or whoever the real person is he was based
> > upon) he wasn't English at all but British/Welsh and fighting the people
> > who became the English.
>
> That's a matter of definition. As I understand it genetic tests have shown
> that the English are just as British/Celtic as the Welsh. Only in the west
> of Ireland are there any purely British/Celtic populations - everybody else
> in Britain (recent immigrants aside) is a mixture of original Britons and
> some kind of Norse or Germanic blood - different Norse or Germanic blood
> depending on where you are. The difference between the English and what we
> nowadays think of as the Celtic countries is that the English and the
> Lowland Scots lost their original language and the Welsh and Highlanders etc
> didn't.
>
Marie:
Everything you say is true, but that still doesn't make Arthur English (ie Anglo-Saxon).
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 00:35:29
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Everything you say is true, but that still doesn't make Arthur English (ie
> Anglo-Saxon).
Oh, right, I see what you're saying - that my friend Janet shouldn't have
said "only two kings of England" when Arthur was Welsh/Cornish. And saying
"only two kings of Britain" brings in the Scots kings and raises issues to
do with Macbeth or the Bruce being remembered.
OTOH the "King Arthur" of the legends does tend to be presented as a King of
England, and might be remembered as such - the real Artos was probably more
like a local warlord.
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> Everything you say is true, but that still doesn't make Arthur English (ie
> Anglo-Saxon).
Oh, right, I see what you're saying - that my friend Janet shouldn't have
said "only two kings of England" when Arthur was Welsh/Cornish. And saying
"only two kings of Britain" brings in the Scots kings and raises issues to
do with Macbeth or the Bruce being remembered.
OTOH the "King Arthur" of the legends does tend to be presented as a King of
England, and might be remembered as such - the real Artos was probably more
like a local warlord.
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 01:08:31
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:21 AM
> Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
>
>
> > Everything you say is true, but that still doesn't make Arthur English (ie
> > Anglo-Saxon).
>
> Oh, right, I see what you're saying - that my friend Janet shouldn't have
> said "only two kings of England" when Arthur was Welsh/Cornish. And saying
> "only two kings of Britain" brings in the Scots kings and raises issues to
> do with Macbeth or the Bruce being remembered.
>
> OTOH the "King Arthur" of the legends does tend to be presented as a King of
> England, and might be remembered as such - the real Artos was probably more
> like a local warlord.
>
What? I was responding to your post about genetics, actually.
Marie
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:21 AM
> Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
>
>
> > Everything you say is true, but that still doesn't make Arthur English (ie
> > Anglo-Saxon).
>
> Oh, right, I see what you're saying - that my friend Janet shouldn't have
> said "only two kings of England" when Arthur was Welsh/Cornish. And saying
> "only two kings of Britain" brings in the Scots kings and raises issues to
> do with Macbeth or the Bruce being remembered.
>
> OTOH the "King Arthur" of the legends does tend to be presented as a King of
> England, and might be remembered as such - the real Artos was probably more
> like a local warlord.
>
What? I was responding to your post about genetics, actually.
Marie
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 01:16:02
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> What? I was responding to your post about genetics, actually.
Marie
Oh, right, well in that case the point is that afaik genetic tests show that
the "Anglo-Saxons" were more or less as British as the Welsh. The actual
Saxon invaders didn't contribute a huge amount genetically and the
"Anglo-Saxons" were people who spoke Saxon, rather than who were necessarily
very Saxon by blood.
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> What? I was responding to your post about genetics, actually.
Marie
Oh, right, well in that case the point is that afaik genetic tests show that
the "Anglo-Saxons" were more or less as British as the Welsh. The actual
Saxon invaders didn't contribute a huge amount genetically and the
"Anglo-Saxons" were people who spoke Saxon, rather than who were necessarily
very Saxon by blood.
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 01:23:11
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:08 AM
> Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
>
>
> > What? I was responding to your post about genetics, actually.
> Marie
>
> Oh, right, well in that case the point is that afaik genetic tests show that
> the "Anglo-Saxons" were more or less as British as the Welsh. The actual
> Saxon invaders didn't contribute a huge amount genetically and the
> "Anglo-Saxons" were people who spoke Saxon, rather than who were necessarily
> very Saxon by blood.
>
I know! It doesn't make Arthur English because Anglo-Saxon culture hadn't come, there was no England, there were Britons and there was Loegr! Stop and think it through. Sorry if I sound ratty.
Marie
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:08 AM
> Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
>
>
> > What? I was responding to your post about genetics, actually.
> Marie
>
> Oh, right, well in that case the point is that afaik genetic tests show that
> the "Anglo-Saxons" were more or less as British as the Welsh. The actual
> Saxon invaders didn't contribute a huge amount genetically and the
> "Anglo-Saxons" were people who spoke Saxon, rather than who were necessarily
> very Saxon by blood.
>
I know! It doesn't make Arthur English because Anglo-Saxon culture hadn't come, there was no England, there were Britons and there was Loegr! Stop and think it through. Sorry if I sound ratty.
Marie
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 01:32:52
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> I know! It doesn't make Arthur English because Anglo-Saxon culture hadn't
> come, there was no England, there were Britons and there was Loegr! Stop
> and think it through. Sorry if I sound ratty.
Marie
Then we're back to what I said you said before, and you said you *didn't*
say, i.e,. Janet shouldn't have listed him as a "king of England" when in
fact he was Welsh/Cornish, or Cymric if you prefer - and, as you say,
England as such didn't exist then. But then you said you were talking about
the genetics, which isn't relevant imo because genetically he wasn't
different from the people who became the English.
Although the thing he was king of, if he *was* a king, did include parts of
what is now England - there was one Welsh-speaking cultural block all the
way down the west from Loch Lomond to Cornwall so it took in the Lake
District and at least part of Shropshire and so on. Curiously, in Scottish
Arthurian legends Mordred is often the hero and Arthur a usurper.
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> I know! It doesn't make Arthur English because Anglo-Saxon culture hadn't
> come, there was no England, there were Britons and there was Loegr! Stop
> and think it through. Sorry if I sound ratty.
Marie
Then we're back to what I said you said before, and you said you *didn't*
say, i.e,. Janet shouldn't have listed him as a "king of England" when in
fact he was Welsh/Cornish, or Cymric if you prefer - and, as you say,
England as such didn't exist then. But then you said you were talking about
the genetics, which isn't relevant imo because genetically he wasn't
different from the people who became the English.
Although the thing he was king of, if he *was* a king, did include parts of
what is now England - there was one Welsh-speaking cultural block all the
way down the west from Loch Lomond to Cornwall so it took in the Lake
District and at least part of Shropshire and so on. Curiously, in Scottish
Arthurian legends Mordred is often the hero and Arthur a usurper.
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 01:36:57
Oh, for crying out loud!
Marie
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
>
>
> > I know! It doesn't make Arthur English because Anglo-Saxon culture hadn't
> > come, there was no England, there were Britons and there was Loegr! Stop
> > and think it through. Sorry if I sound ratty.
> Marie
>
> Then we're back to what I said you said before, and you said you *didn't*
> say, i.e,. Janet shouldn't have listed him as a "king of England" when in
> fact he was Welsh/Cornish, or Cymric if you prefer - and, as you say,
> England as such didn't exist then. But then you said you were talking about
> the genetics, which isn't relevant imo because genetically he wasn't
> different from the people who became the English.
>
> Although the thing he was king of, if he *was* a king, did include parts of
> what is now England - there was one Welsh-speaking cultural block all the
> way down the west from Loch Lomond to Cornwall so it took in the Lake
> District and at least part of Shropshire and so on. Curiously, in Scottish
> Arthurian legends Mordred is often the hero and Arthur a usurper.
>
Marie
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
>
>
> > I know! It doesn't make Arthur English because Anglo-Saxon culture hadn't
> > come, there was no England, there were Britons and there was Loegr! Stop
> > and think it through. Sorry if I sound ratty.
> Marie
>
> Then we're back to what I said you said before, and you said you *didn't*
> say, i.e,. Janet shouldn't have listed him as a "king of England" when in
> fact he was Welsh/Cornish, or Cymric if you prefer - and, as you say,
> England as such didn't exist then. But then you said you were talking about
> the genetics, which isn't relevant imo because genetically he wasn't
> different from the people who became the English.
>
> Although the thing he was king of, if he *was* a king, did include parts of
> what is now England - there was one Welsh-speaking cultural block all the
> way down the west from Loch Lomond to Cornwall so it took in the Lake
> District and at least part of Shropshire and so on. Curiously, in Scottish
> Arthurian legends Mordred is often the hero and Arthur a usurper.
>
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 03:18:20
Claire said:
>[snip]
> Although the thing he was king of, if he *was* a king, did include parts of what is now England - there was one Welsh-speaking cultural block all the way down the west from Loch Lomond to Cornwall so it took in the Lake District and at least part of Shropshire and so on. Curiously, in Scottish Arthurian legends Mordred is often the hero and Arthur a usurper.
Carol responds:
Setting aside today's blood lines, Arthur, if he existed, was a Celtic king in late Roman times. Because the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians had arrived yet, the country was not yet Englaland (land of the Angles). If you had told Arthur that he was English because the descendants of the Britons would mingle with some Germanic tribesmen who would give their name to his land (and were perhaps just beginning to be hired as mercenaries to fight off the wild Picts because the Romans were leaving Britannia), he would have thought that you were crazy.
The English co-opted Arthur in Saxon times with the Alliterative Morte d'Arthur, but that did not make the historical Arthur (if he existed) in any sense an English king.
Carol
>[snip]
> Although the thing he was king of, if he *was* a king, did include parts of what is now England - there was one Welsh-speaking cultural block all the way down the west from Loch Lomond to Cornwall so it took in the Lake District and at least part of Shropshire and so on. Curiously, in Scottish Arthurian legends Mordred is often the hero and Arthur a usurper.
Carol responds:
Setting aside today's blood lines, Arthur, if he existed, was a Celtic king in late Roman times. Because the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians had arrived yet, the country was not yet Englaland (land of the Angles). If you had told Arthur that he was English because the descendants of the Britons would mingle with some Germanic tribesmen who would give their name to his land (and were perhaps just beginning to be hired as mercenaries to fight off the wild Picts because the Romans were leaving Britannia), he would have thought that you were crazy.
The English co-opted Arthur in Saxon times with the Alliterative Morte d'Arthur, but that did not make the historical Arthur (if he existed) in any sense an English king.
Carol
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 03:30:45
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> The English co-opted Arthur in Saxon times with the Alliterative Morte
> d'Arthur, but that did not make the historical Arthur (if he existed) in
> any sense an English king.
I know, but she was talking about what people maybe five thousand years from
now would *think* of as English kings, and because of Mallory they probably
will think of Arthur that way, even though it's an anachronism.
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
> The English co-opted Arthur in Saxon times with the Alliterative Morte
> d'Arthur, but that did not make the historical Arthur (if he existed) in
> any sense an English king.
I know, but she was talking about what people maybe five thousand years from
now would *think* of as English kings, and because of Mallory they probably
will think of Arthur that way, even though it's an anachronism.
Re: "Ricardian Recorder" news
2013-02-25 14:39:02
Marie wrote:
"I know! It doesn't make Arthur English because Anglo-Saxon culture hadn't
come, there was no England, there were Britons and there was Loegr! Stop and
think it through."
//snip//
The difference would culture, not genetics then? Which would be
understandable as the modern idea of genetics didn't really show up until,
what, the mid-19th century?
Seemingly "Arthur" was fighting to retain/maintain a certain type of
society, as demonstrated by that society's economics, politics and general
social organization. Any effects, genetically speaking, on the general
population would merely be a side-effect (marriage customs, etc) and, since
there apparently was little difference in the genetic make-up between the
Anglo-Saxons and those they were attempting to displace, the only real
difference between Arthur and those he fought was that very social
organization in all its' ramifications.
Doug
(did I get it right?)
"I know! It doesn't make Arthur English because Anglo-Saxon culture hadn't
come, there was no England, there were Britons and there was Loegr! Stop and
think it through."
//snip//
The difference would culture, not genetics then? Which would be
understandable as the modern idea of genetics didn't really show up until,
what, the mid-19th century?
Seemingly "Arthur" was fighting to retain/maintain a certain type of
society, as demonstrated by that society's economics, politics and general
social organization. Any effects, genetically speaking, on the general
population would merely be a side-effect (marriage customs, etc) and, since
there apparently was little difference in the genetic make-up between the
Anglo-Saxons and those they were attempting to displace, the only real
difference between Arthur and those he fought was that very social
organization in all its' ramifications.
Doug
(did I get it right?)
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.