Amy Licence and The New Statesman
Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 12:02:34
Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 12:21:39
Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation.
________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 12:46:30
You probably "nailed it".....especially for authors who have made a livelihood being pro-Tudor. If you have never been open to an alternate possibility, the tiniest of things can be used to substantiate your view. Think politician!!!
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of ricard1an
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:03 AM
To:
Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of ricard1an
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:03 AM
To:
Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 12:52:37
But it was a famous shrine. Of course it is possible he would visit if he was near and had the time. But she can't even prove that much.
The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere. <disbelief emoticon>
It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation. Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
> Â
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
>
>
>
The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere. <disbelief emoticon>
It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation. Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
> Â
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 13:06:39
Hi I googled but can't find it. - maybe just as well.
Even if this is true, it certainly isn't "evidence" of anything other than Richard had a trip to Canterbury. I've been there too but I didn't murder the Princes!
What utter tripe.
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
Even if this is true, it certainly isn't "evidence" of anything other than Richard had a trip to Canterbury. I've been there too but I didn't murder the Princes!
What utter tripe.
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 14:08:17
I found the article here
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/03/new-evidence-was-richard-iii-guilty-murdering-princes-tower
She's clearly hawking her new book
*Amy Licenceýs biography **ýAnne Neville, Richard IIIýs Tragic
Queený*<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anne-Neville-Richard-Tragic-Queen/dp/1445611538/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362415342&sr=8-1>
*(Amberley Publishing) is due out this April, containing information about
the recent excavations at Leicester.*
But if she has genuine new evidence, as the article suggests, someone with
a different theory also needs to look at that evidence.
A J
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that
> she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes.
> Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the
> time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he
> didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside
> the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or
> maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have
> stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no
> evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be
> evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for
> killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell
> might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought
> he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it
> beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up.
> Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/03/new-evidence-was-richard-iii-guilty-murdering-princes-tower
She's clearly hawking her new book
*Amy Licenceýs biography **ýAnne Neville, Richard IIIýs Tragic
Queený*<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anne-Neville-Richard-Tragic-Queen/dp/1445611538/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362415342&sr=8-1>
*(Amberley Publishing) is due out this April, containing information about
the recent excavations at Leicester.*
But if she has genuine new evidence, as the article suggests, someone with
a different theory also needs to look at that evidence.
A J
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that
> she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes.
> Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the
> time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he
> didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside
> the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or
> maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have
> stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no
> evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be
> evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for
> killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell
> might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought
> he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it
> beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up.
> Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 14:32:56
"Scandal: Pious king may have visited a shrine - it proves he murdered two
children".
----- Original Message -----
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
I found the article here
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/03/new-evidence-was-richard-iii-guilty-murdering-princes-tower
She's clearly hawking her new book
*Amy Licence's biography **"Anne Neville, Richard III's Tragic
Queen"*<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anne-Neville-Richard-Tragic-Queen/dp/1445611538/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362415342&sr=8-1>
*(Amberley Publishing) is due out this April, containing information about
the recent excavations at Leicester.*
But if she has genuine new evidence, as the article suggests, someone with
a different theory also needs to look at that evidence.
A J
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that
> she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes.
> Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the
> time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he
> didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but
> outside
> the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or
> maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have
> stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no
> evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be
> evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for
> killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell
> might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought
> he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it
> beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up.
> Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their
> books.
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
children".
----- Original Message -----
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
I found the article here
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/03/new-evidence-was-richard-iii-guilty-murdering-princes-tower
She's clearly hawking her new book
*Amy Licence's biography **"Anne Neville, Richard III's Tragic
Queen"*<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anne-Neville-Richard-Tragic-Queen/dp/1445611538/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362415342&sr=8-1>
*(Amberley Publishing) is due out this April, containing information about
the recent excavations at Leicester.*
But if she has genuine new evidence, as the article suggests, someone with
a different theory also needs to look at that evidence.
A J
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that
> she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes.
> Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the
> time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he
> didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but
> outside
> the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or
> maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have
> stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no
> evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be
> evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for
> killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell
> might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought
> he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it
> beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up.
> Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their
> books.
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 14:51:01
Yes...I thought that is what she is implying...but is so absolutely daft I can scare believe she is serious...
Well if people want to spend their cash on this book good luck to them...Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> "Scandal: Pious king may have visited a shrine - it proves he murdered two
> children".
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> I found the article here
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/03/new-evidence-was-richard-iii-guilty-murdering-princes-tower
>
>
> She's clearly hawking her new book
>
> *Amy Licence's biography **"Anne Neville, Richard III's Tragic
> Queen"*<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anne-Neville-Richard-Tragic-Queen/dp/1445611538/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362415342&sr=8-1>
> *(Amberley Publishing) is due out this April, containing information about
> the recent excavations at Leicester.*
>
> But if she has genuine new evidence, as the article suggests, someone with
> a different theory also needs to look at that evidence.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that
> > she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes.
> > Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the
> > time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he
> > didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but
> > outside
> > the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or
> > maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have
> > stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no
> > evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be
> > evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for
> > killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell
> > might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought
> > he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
> >
> > Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it
> > beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up.
> > Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their
> > books.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Well if people want to spend their cash on this book good luck to them...Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> "Scandal: Pious king may have visited a shrine - it proves he murdered two
> children".
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> I found the article here
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/03/new-evidence-was-richard-iii-guilty-murdering-princes-tower
>
>
> She's clearly hawking her new book
>
> *Amy Licence's biography **"Anne Neville, Richard III's Tragic
> Queen"*<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anne-Neville-Richard-Tragic-Queen/dp/1445611538/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362415342&sr=8-1>
> *(Amberley Publishing) is due out this April, containing information about
> the recent excavations at Leicester.*
>
> But if she has genuine new evidence, as the article suggests, someone with
> a different theory also needs to look at that evidence.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that
> > she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes.
> > Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the
> > time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he
> > didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but
> > outside
> > the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or
> > maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have
> > stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no
> > evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be
> > evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for
> > killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell
> > might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought
> > he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
> >
> > Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it
> > beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up.
> > Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their
> > books.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 15:19:27
I seem to recall Edward and Elizabeth Woodville went on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. It was the thing to do. H.
________________________________
From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:52
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
But it was a famous shrine. Of course it is possible he would visit if he was near and had the time. But she can't even prove that much.
The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere.
It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation. Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
> Â
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:52
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
But it was a famous shrine. Of course it is possible he would visit if he was near and had the time. But she can't even prove that much.
The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere.
It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation. Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
> Â
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 15:30:27
And didn't Anthony Woodville do the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela?
I wonder what terrible crimes Ms Licence would consider he was doing penance for.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to recall Edward and Elizabeth Woodville went on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. It was the thing to do. H.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:52
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
> Â
>
> But it was a famous shrine. Of course it is possible he would visit if he was near and had the time. But she can't even prove that much.
> The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere.
>
> It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation. ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> > Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
> >
> > Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
I wonder what terrible crimes Ms Licence would consider he was doing penance for.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to recall Edward and Elizabeth Woodville went on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. It was the thing to do. H.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:52
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
> Â
>
> But it was a famous shrine. Of course it is possible he would visit if he was near and had the time. But she can't even prove that much.
> The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere.
>
> It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation. ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> > Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
> >
> > Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 15:35:22
Yes he did. And Richard Beauchamp went to Constantinople.
________________________________
From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 15:30
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
And didn't Anthony Woodville do the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela?
I wonder what terrible crimes Ms Licence would consider he was doing penance for.
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I seem to recall Edward and Elizabeth Woodville went on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. It was the thing to do. H.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Katherine
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:52
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
> Â
>
> But it was a famous shrine. Of course it is possible he would visit if he was near and had the time. But she can't even prove that much.
> The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere.
>
> It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation.ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> > Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
> >
> > Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 15:30
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
And didn't Anthony Woodville do the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela?
I wonder what terrible crimes Ms Licence would consider he was doing penance for.
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I seem to recall Edward and Elizabeth Woodville went on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. It was the thing to do. H.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Katherine
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:52
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
> Â
>
> But it was a famous shrine. Of course it is possible he would visit if he was near and had the time. But she can't even prove that much.
> The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere.
>
> It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation.ÃÂ ÃÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> > Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
> >
> > Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 15:38:16
From: ricard1an maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of
> pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that
> Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was
> doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes.
This is daft three times. Firstly because we don't know that he made the
pilgrimage; secondly because hundreds of thousands of people must have made
it over the years, hardly any of whom had murdered their relatives; and
thirdly because if he *had* been repenting of anything you would expect it
to be the death of Hastings, since there are certain loose parallels between
Henry II losing his patience with Beckett and Richard blowing up fatally at
Hastings.
It was January 1484 that Richard was in Canterbury, accto the itinerary.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of
> pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that
> Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was
> doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes.
This is daft three times. Firstly because we don't know that he made the
pilgrimage; secondly because hundreds of thousands of people must have made
it over the years, hardly any of whom had murdered their relatives; and
thirdly because if he *had* been repenting of anything you would expect it
to be the death of Hastings, since there are certain loose parallels between
Henry II losing his patience with Beckett and Richard blowing up fatally at
Hastings.
It was January 1484 that Richard was in Canterbury, accto the itinerary.
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 15:43:58
From: Katherine
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and
> stayed...somewhere.
> It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers
> researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
I run a very high-powered fannish forum which analyses the Harry Potter
books in minute detail, and one of the things we have to watch out for is
the difference between things which are canon, i.e. which can be
demonstrated from what's in the books and associated material, and things
which are merely canon-compatible, i.e. which aren't supported by any firm
evidence but which don't actually conflict with canon.
Licence is confusing the two here. If one wanted to write a novel about a
murderous yet remorseful Richard, then here is an opportunity to fit in a
bit of penance, so her idea is canon-compatible, where "canon" is what can
be demonstrated form reliable historical sources. But it isn't itself
canon, because there's no evidence to support it as more than a mere
possibility.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and
> stayed...somewhere.
> It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers
> researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
I run a very high-powered fannish forum which analyses the Harry Potter
books in minute detail, and one of the things we have to watch out for is
the difference between things which are canon, i.e. which can be
demonstrated from what's in the books and associated material, and things
which are merely canon-compatible, i.e. which aren't supported by any firm
evidence but which don't actually conflict with canon.
Licence is confusing the two here. If one wanted to write a novel about a
murderous yet remorseful Richard, then here is an opportunity to fit in a
bit of penance, so her idea is canon-compatible, where "canon" is what can
be demonstrated form reliable historical sources. But it isn't itself
canon, because there's no evidence to support it as more than a mere
possibility.
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 15:57:30
Yeah, sorry. I know it was a silly thing to say. I was having a defeatist moment. I sometimes feel like that when confronted with stuff that takes enormous speculative leaps.
It's depressing because, as Hilary said earlier, lots of people read this kind of thing and take it as fact. But I really should learn to be a bit more impervious to this kind of thing; especially as there is so much of it at the moment.
Proper serious research is always worth doing - even if relatively few people are paying attention.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Katherine
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> > The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and
> > stayed...somewhere.
>
> > It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers
> > researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
>
> I run a very high-powered fannish forum which analyses the Harry Potter
> books in minute detail, and one of the things we have to watch out for is
> the difference between things which are canon, i.e. which can be
> demonstrated from what's in the books and associated material, and things
> which are merely canon-compatible, i.e. which aren't supported by any firm
> evidence but which don't actually conflict with canon.
>
> Licence is confusing the two here. If one wanted to write a novel about a
> murderous yet remorseful Richard, then here is an opportunity to fit in a
> bit of penance, so her idea is canon-compatible, where "canon" is what can
> be demonstrated form reliable historical sources. But it isn't itself
> canon, because there's no evidence to support it as more than a mere
> possibility.
>
It's depressing because, as Hilary said earlier, lots of people read this kind of thing and take it as fact. But I really should learn to be a bit more impervious to this kind of thing; especially as there is so much of it at the moment.
Proper serious research is always worth doing - even if relatively few people are paying attention.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Katherine
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> > The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and
> > stayed...somewhere.
>
> > It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers
> > researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
>
> I run a very high-powered fannish forum which analyses the Harry Potter
> books in minute detail, and one of the things we have to watch out for is
> the difference between things which are canon, i.e. which can be
> demonstrated from what's in the books and associated material, and things
> which are merely canon-compatible, i.e. which aren't supported by any firm
> evidence but which don't actually conflict with canon.
>
> Licence is confusing the two here. If one wanted to write a novel about a
> murderous yet remorseful Richard, then here is an opportunity to fit in a
> bit of penance, so her idea is canon-compatible, where "canon" is what can
> be demonstrated form reliable historical sources. But it isn't itself
> canon, because there's no evidence to support it as more than a mere
> possibility.
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 16:12:02
From: Katherine
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> Yeah, sorry. I know it was a silly thing to say.
Nono, I wasn't arguing with what you said - just expanding on it :)
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> Yeah, sorry. I know it was a silly thing to say.
Nono, I wasn't arguing with what you said - just expanding on it :)
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 16:27:48
Ah, ok. I must have got the wrong end of the stick. Sorry.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Katherine
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> > Yeah, sorry. I know it was a silly thing to say.
>
> Nono, I wasn't arguing with what you said - just expanding on it :)
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Katherine
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> > Yeah, sorry. I know it was a silly thing to say.
>
> Nono, I wasn't arguing with what you said - just expanding on it :)
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 19:46:51
Katherine, I have been feeling the same way. If you visit Amy's fb page you would be astound by all the congratulations from her fans! Including some respected authors who writes pro Tudor novels! It is just sad really........
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:52 AM, "Katherine" <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
> But it was a famous shrine. Of course it is possible he would visit if he was near and had the time. But she can't even prove that much.
> The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere.
>
> It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> > Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> >
> >
> >
> > Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
> >
> > Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:52 AM, "Katherine" <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
> But it was a famous shrine. Of course it is possible he would visit if he was near and had the time. But she can't even prove that much.
> The sum of her evidence is that Richard visited Canterbury in 1484 and stayed...somewhere.
>
> It is all very depressing. You know, sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers researching seriously when people publish "evidence" like this.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Trouble is, as we've said a million times, the gullible believe this rubbish. And it's all just to make a few bucks for someone at the price of someone else's reputation.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> > Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
> >
> >
> >
> > Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
> >
> > Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 19:47:46
I emailed the group the link.
Liz, I posted it on the Ricardian group too.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 5, 2013, at 8:06 AM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Hi I googled but can't find it. - maybe just as well.
>
> Even if this is true, it certainly isn't "evidence" of anything other than Richard had a trip to Canterbury. I've been there too but I didn't murder the Princes!
>
> What utter tripe.
>
> From: ricard1an maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
>
Liz, I posted it on the Ricardian group too.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 5, 2013, at 8:06 AM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Hi I googled but can't find it. - maybe just as well.
>
> Even if this is true, it certainly isn't "evidence" of anything other than Richard had a trip to Canterbury. I've been there too but I didn't murder the Princes!
>
> What utter tripe.
>
> From: ricard1an maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 20:35:33
Yes, i see there is an "interesting" discussion on there ...
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 19:47
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
I emailed the group the link.
Liz, I posted it on the Ricardian group too.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 5, 2013, at 8:06 AM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
> Hi I googled but can't find it. - maybe just as well.
>
> Even if this is true, it certainly isn't "evidence" of anything other than Richard had a trip to Canterbury. I've been there too but I didn't murder the Princes!
>
> What utter tripe.
>
> From: ricard1an mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 19:47
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
I emailed the group the link.
Liz, I posted it on the Ricardian group too.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 5, 2013, at 8:06 AM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
> Hi I googled but can't find it. - maybe just as well.
>
> Even if this is true, it certainly isn't "evidence" of anything other than Richard had a trip to Canterbury. I've been there too but I didn't murder the Princes!
>
> What utter tripe.
>
> From: ricard1an mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:02
> Subject: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
>
>
> Amy Licence has written an article for the New Statesman suggesting that she may have found "new evidence" that Richard killed the Princes. Apparently Richard visited Canterbury I think she said in 1483 around the time of the Buckingham rebellion( read it quite quickly). Apparently he didn't stay at the Archbishop's Palace or with the Augustinians but outside the walls maybe with a Thomas Lovell, possibly a relative of Francis, or maybe somewhere else. Near to these possible places, where he may have stayed, is a type of pilgrim walk to Thomas Becket's tomb. There is no evidence to say that Richard took this walk but if he did that could be evidence that he was doing the same as Henry II did and paying penance for killing the Princes. Well he didn't actually kill them but James Tyrrell might have done because he was in London in 1483 and he might have thought he would do it as it would be beneficial to Richard.
>
> Just where do these people get their ideas from? It is so flimsy it beggers belief. If you goggle Amy Licence + New Statesman it will come up. Everybody is jumping on the Richard III bandwagon just to sell their books.
>
>
>
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 21:49:13
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> I found the article here
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/03/new-evidence-was-richard-iii-guilty-murdering-princes-tower
Carol responds:
Ugh. The whole business of James Tyrrell confessing to the crimes taken as fact again--and now we have the suggestion that Sir James did it without royal permission. Maybe they have him confused with Buckingham, the only man who might have done that (if they were murdered at all)?
I wish the general public would realize that More invented Tyrrell's confession (along with the suffocation story, the withered arm, and much else).
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
carol
>
> I found the article here
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/03/new-evidence-was-richard-iii-guilty-murdering-princes-tower
Carol responds:
Ugh. The whole business of James Tyrrell confessing to the crimes taken as fact again--and now we have the suggestion that Sir James did it without royal permission. Maybe they have him confused with Buckingham, the only man who might have done that (if they were murdered at all)?
I wish the general public would realize that More invented Tyrrell's confession (along with the suffocation story, the withered arm, and much else).
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
carol
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 21:51:43
Poor Tyrrell...He has been as much maligned as Richard labelled as a child killer...Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Ugh. The whole business of James Tyrrell confessing to the crimes taken as fact again--and now we have the suggestion that Sir James did it without royal permission. Maybe they have him confused with Buckingham, the only man who might have done that (if they were murdered at all)?
>
> I wish the general public would realize that More invented Tyrrell's confession (along with the suffocation story, the withered arm, and much else).
>
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>
> carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Ugh. The whole business of James Tyrrell confessing to the crimes taken as fact again--and now we have the suggestion that Sir James did it without royal permission. Maybe they have him confused with Buckingham, the only man who might have done that (if they were murdered at all)?
>
> I wish the general public would realize that More invented Tyrrell's confession (along with the suffocation story, the withered arm, and much else).
>
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>
> carol
>
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 21:53:58
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "Scandal: Pious king may have visited a shrine - it proves he murdered two children".
Carol responds:
Brilliant, Stephen. You should post that to the comments section. (Just noticed that someone else has had the same reaction though not as cleverly put: "
"So basically, Richard III may have visited a very famous shrine in 1484 when he was staying in Canterbury?
"Wow, case closed. We can all stop researching."
Good to know that not all readers are gullible.
Carol
>
> "Scandal: Pious king may have visited a shrine - it proves he murdered two children".
Carol responds:
Brilliant, Stephen. You should post that to the comments section. (Just noticed that someone else has had the same reaction though not as cleverly put: "
"So basically, Richard III may have visited a very famous shrine in 1484 when he was staying in Canterbury?
"Wow, case closed. We can all stop researching."
Good to know that not all readers are gullible.
Carol
Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
2013-03-05 22:30:35
I wish I had time right now.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "Scandal: Pious king may have visited a shrine - it proves he murdered two children".
Carol responds:
Brilliant, Stephen. You should post that to the comments section. (Just noticed that someone else has had the same reaction though not as cleverly put: "
"So basically, Richard III may have visited a very famous shrine in 1484 when he was staying in Canterbury?
"Wow, case closed. We can all stop researching."
Good to know that not all readers are gullible.
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence and The New Statesman
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "Scandal: Pious king may have visited a shrine - it proves he murdered two children".
Carol responds:
Brilliant, Stephen. You should post that to the comments section. (Just noticed that someone else has had the same reaction though not as cleverly put: "
"So basically, Richard III may have visited a very famous shrine in 1484 when he was staying in Canterbury?
"Wow, case closed. We can all stop researching."
Good to know that not all readers are gullible.
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.