re new book

Re: cover illustration on new book: The David Baldwin new book on Richard has a nauseating cover illustration! Just when we all were enjoying the looks of our Bonney Lad, and figuring we deserve some reward for our decades of research and support, we are subjected to this! I guess Im just a shallow Lady of a Certain Age, but there ought to be a law! Carol D.

Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
Maire.


--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> Re: cover illustration on new book: The David Baldwin new book on Richard has a nauseating cover illustration! Just when we all were enjoying the looks of our Bonney Lad, and figuring we deserve some reward for our decades of research and support, we are subjected to this! I guess Im just a shallow Lady of a Certain Age, but there ought to be a law! Carol D.
>

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
> Maire.
>

I wonder why, though. If you're going to believe Richard was the veriest devil, wouldn't it be much more *fun* to imagine a handsome devil who's charming on the outside but rotten on the inside?

"mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
> Maire.

Carol responds:

It's a sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist, one of many in the National Portrait Gallery, on display at Montacute House, Yeovil, whatever "Yeovil" means. It appears to be copied from the same original as the famous NPG portrait in the main gallery (but by a more hostile artist?).

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii and http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw05305/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=0

I suppose that some publishers' book designers choose that cover to be "different" from all the others, which use either the main NPG portrait or the Society of Antiquities one. Or maybe Baldwin chose it himself to fit the "neither villain nor hero" stance that he's trying to take.

I suspect that the facial reconstruction will soon become the cover of choice for new (favorable) books on Richard unless Leicester University refuses to grant permission, which seems unlikely given the proliferation of photos all over the Internet.

Anyway, I agree that it's a bad portrait, but at least they didn't choose this one:

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw123666/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=3

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's a sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist, one of many in the National Portrait Gallery, on display at Montacute House, Yeovil, whatever "Yeovil" means. It appears to be copied from the same original as the famous NPG portrait in the main gallery (but by a more hostile artist?).
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii and http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw05305/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=0
>

I wonder if it's a copy of this copy?
http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/illustration/portrait-of-king-richard-iii-c-1575-stock-graphic/71901947?Language=en-US

There's a certain similarity, about the eyes especially.

>
> Anyway, I agree that it's a bad portrait, but at least they didn't choose this one:
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw123666/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=3
>

Or this (the original of the one above?):
http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=21365

(It bothers me that this picture reminds me of an actor but I can't remember whom!)

 


Carol
It's a sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist, one of many in the National Portrait Gallery, on display at Montacute House, Yeovil, whatever "Yeovil" means.

Liz replied:
 
Yeovil is a town in Somerset.

http://www.britainsfinest.co.uk/gardens/gardens.cfm/searchazref/81001290MONA

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: re new book


> It's a sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist, one of many in the
> National Portrait Gallery, on display at Montacute House, Yeovil, whatever
> "Yeovil" means.

Yeovil is a town in Somerset, about 15 miles NE of Lyme Regis and a few
miles SW of Queen Camel (really).

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: re new book


> I wonder if it's a copy of this copy?
http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/illustration/portrait-of-king-richard-iii-c-1575-stock-graphic/71901947?Language=en-US

Well, they've both got the thumb right, which places them in a sequence
descending from the RC one. The NPG one. although the best copy of this
portrait in all other respects, has misunderstood the fact that his thumb is
meant to be tucked behind his lapel and has instead given him a weird
pointed thumb, so you can tell whether a given copy descends from the NPG or
RC version.

> Or this (the original of the one above?):
http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=21365

> (It bothers me that this picture reminds me of an actor but I can't
> remember whom!)

Well, it's not wholly unlike Peter Bowles (just wholly unlike Richard).

Oh Carol, I thought exactly the same thing. UGH......how could he do that?

On Mar 9, 2013, at 3:58 PM, "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...<mailto:cdarlingart1@...>> wrote:



Re: cover illustration on new book: The David Baldwin new book on Richard has a nauseating cover illustration! Just when we all were enjoying the looks of our Bonney Lad, and figuring we deserve some reward for our decades of research and support, we are subjected to this! I guess Im just a shallow Lady of a Certain Age, but there ought to be a law! Carol D.

Yes, it does not look like him, and I have never seen that picture. Interesting, that down below is another book about Richard, that has the more familiar visage! I would think the best cover would be the recreation of his face....that is Bonny.

On Mar 9, 2013, at 4:45 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:



Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> Re: cover illustration on new book: The David Baldwin new book on Richard has a nauseating cover illustration! Just when we all were enjoying the looks of our Bonney Lad, and figuring we deserve some reward for our decades of research and support, we are subjected to this! I guess Im just a shallow Lady of a Certain Age, but there ought to be a law! Carol D.
>

Oh my, that is the worst by far.

On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:24 PM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's a sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist, one of many in the National Portrait Gallery, on display at Montacute House, Yeovil, whatever "Yeovil" means. It appears to be copied from the same original as the famous NPG portrait in the main gallery (but by a more hostile artist?).
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii and http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw05305/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=0
>

I wonder if it's a copy of this copy?
http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/illustration/portrait-of-king-richard-iii-c-1575-stock-graphic/71901947?Language=en-US

There's a certain similarity, about the eyes especially.

>
> Anyway, I agree that it's a bad portrait, but at least they didn't choose this one:
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw123666/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=3
>

Or this (the original of the one above?):
http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=21365

(It bothers me that this picture reminds me of an actor but I can't remember whom!)

The recreation of his face is on the back cover.

This small publisher has done well to get Baldwin's book updated and out within a month of the results of the dig being formally announced, especially as a friend of mine who is being published by St Martins Press (one of the biggest publishers in the world) has just received proofs of his book (nothing to do to with Richard, though) to correct in PENCIL six long months before it's due out.

--- On Sat, 9/3/13, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: re new book
> To: "<>" <>
> Date: Saturday, 9 March, 2013, 23:51
> Yes, it does not look like him, and I
> have never seen that picture. Interesting, that down below
> is another book about Richard, that has the more familiar
> visage! I would think the best cover would be the recreation
> of his face....that is Bonny.
>
> On Mar 9, 2013, at 4:45 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've
> seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But
> the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea
> that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
> Maire.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
> >
> > Re: cover illustration on new book: The David Baldwin
> new book on Richard has a nauseating cover illustration!
> Just when we all were enjoying the looks of our Bonney Lad,
> and figuring we deserve some reward for our decades of
> research and support, we are subjected to this! I guess Im
> just a shallow Lady of a Certain Age, but there ought to be
> a law! Carol D.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     [email protected]
>
>

Good lord! Lololol!!
That's as far com our Bonny lad as we can go! Someone should ban these images now that we know how good looking he was. Yes people, I am that shallow:D

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 9, 2013, at 6:10 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
> > Maire.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's a sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist, one of many in the National Portrait Gallery, on display at Montacute House, Yeovil, whatever "Yeovil" means. It appears to be copied from the same original as the famous NPG portrait in the main gallery (but by a more hostile artist?).
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii and http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw05305/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=0
>
> I suppose that some publishers' book designers choose that cover to be "different" from all the others, which use either the main NPG portrait or the Society of Antiquities one. Or maybe Baldwin chose it himself to fit the "neither villain nor hero" stance that he's trying to take.
>
> I suspect that the facial reconstruction will soon become the cover of choice for new (favorable) books on Richard unless Leicester University refuses to grant permission, which seems unlikely given the proliferation of photos all over the Internet.
>
> Anyway, I agree that it's a bad portrait, but at least they didn't choose this one:
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw123666/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=3
>
> Carol
>
>

Pansy, Kevin Spacey?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 9, 2013, at 6:23 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > It's a sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist, one of many in the National Portrait Gallery, on display at Montacute House, Yeovil, whatever "Yeovil" means. It appears to be copied from the same original as the famous NPG portrait in the main gallery (but by a more hostile artist?).
> >
> > http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii and http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw05305/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=0
> >
>
> I wonder if it's a copy of this copy?
> http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/illustration/portrait-of-king-richard-iii-c-1575-stock-graphic/71901947?Language=en-US
>
> There's a certain similarity, about the eyes especially.
>
> >
> > Anyway, I agree that it's a bad portrait, but at least they didn't choose this one:
> >
> > http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw123666/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=3
> >
>
> Or this (the original of the one above?):
> http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=21365
>
> (It bothers me that this picture reminds me of an actor but I can't remember whom!)
>
>

I'm liking shallow. It's refreshing. Maire.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Good lord! Lololol!!
> That's as far com our Bonny lad as we can go! Someone should ban these images now that we know how good looking he was. Yes people, I am that shallow:D
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 9, 2013, at 6:10 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
> > > Maire.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > It's a sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist, one of many in the National Portrait Gallery, on display at Montacute House, Yeovil, whatever "Yeovil" means. It appears to be copied from the same original as the famous NPG portrait in the main gallery (but by a more hostile artist?).
> >
> > http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii and http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw05305/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=0
> >
> > I suppose that some publishers' book designers choose that cover to be "different" from all the others, which use either the main NPG portrait or the Society of Antiquities one. Or maybe Baldwin chose it himself to fit the "neither villain nor hero" stance that he's trying to take.
> >
> > I suspect that the facial reconstruction will soon become the cover of choice for new (favorable) books on Richard unless Leicester University refuses to grant permission, which seems unlikely given the proliferation of photos all over the Internet.
> >
> > Anyway, I agree that it's a bad portrait, but at least they didn't choose this one:
> >
> > http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw123666/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=3
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Maire, lol!
But on the other hand I love him more for dealing with what must have been a painful " disability< ?>.....as someone mentioned he rode 20-30 miles a day!! What a man!

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

On Mar 10, 2013, at 7:31 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> I'm liking shallow. It's refreshing. Maire.
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Good lord! Lololol!!
> > That's as far com our Bonny lad as we can go! Someone should ban these images now that we know how good looking he was. Yes people, I am that shallow:D
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2013, at 6:10 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
> > > > Maire.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > It's a sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist, one of many in the National Portrait Gallery, on display at Montacute House, Yeovil, whatever "Yeovil" means. It appears to be copied from the same original as the famous NPG portrait in the main gallery (but by a more hostile artist?).
> > >
> > > http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii and http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw05305/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=0
> > >
> > > I suppose that some publishers' book designers choose that cover to be "different" from all the others, which use either the main NPG portrait or the Society of Antiquities one. Or maybe Baldwin chose it himself to fit the "neither villain nor hero" stance that he's trying to take.
> > >
> > > I suspect that the facial reconstruction will soon become the cover of choice for new (favorable) books on Richard unless Leicester University refuses to grant permission, which seems unlikely given the proliferation of photos all over the Internet.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I agree that it's a bad portrait, but at least they didn't choose this one:
> > >
> > > http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw123666/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=3
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Why must a section of the 'Tender Gender' insist that a man must be a 'Bonny Lad'.

In our own age it is readily apparent  that some Ladies seem to 'Insist' on us 'Studs' being 'Pretty Bonny' many ladies however find 'Power' a 'Turn On'.

 Whilst others might find, [Especially in Richard's Day?] a Tendency to Wash, Be Considerate, 
Well Mannered, Complimentary Etc.,Etc.,

  A number of politicians, including at the modern 'Top Table,' Lloyd George, John Major, Paddy Ashdown, [?Chris Huhne, Geoffrey Archer] have all had their 'day' in our modern worldly moment in the sonne.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2013, 22:43
>Subject: Re: re new book
>
>
> 
>Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
>Maire.
>
>--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>>
>> Re: cover illustration on new book: The David Baldwin new book on Richard has a nauseating cover illustration! Just when we all were enjoying the looks of our Bonney Lad, and figuring we deserve some reward for our decades of research and support, we are subjected to this! I guess Im just a shallow Lady of a Certain Age, but there ought to be a law! Carol D.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: re new book


> Why must a section of the 'Tender Gender' insist that a man must be a
> 'Bonny Lad'.

Indeed, character is far more important. But we can see from the
reconstruction that Richard *was* a good-looking lad and that's important
both because Shakespeare portrayed him as this ugly sort of monster-figure,
and also psychologically because he probably wasn't too happy about having
slender, girly bones, and being eyeball-to-Adam's-apple with most of the men
around him, let alone having a wiggly back which his enemies would likely
present as some sort of divine judgment if they found out about it - so it
must have been good for his self-confidence to at least have a handsome
face.

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> The recreation of his face is on the back cover.
>
> This small publisher has done well to get Baldwin's book updated and out within a month of the results of the dig being formally announced, especially as a friend of mine who is being published by St Martins Press (one of the biggest publishers in the world) has just received proofs of his book (nothing to do to with Richard, though) to correct in PENCIL six long months before it's due out.

Carol responds:

That's standard procedure. Once the pages have been set in type, both the author and the publisher are sent a set of proofs to be corrected (proofread). Since neither has access to typesetting machinery, the corrections are usually made on the page proofs themselves and incorporated by the typesetter into the file. (It's possible to do it using a .pdf file sent by e-mail but that's rare--or at least it was when I worked as an assistant production editor around a dozen years ago.) The corrected pages are sent to the production editor to make sure that they have been done correctly and have not messed up the pagination, making it necessary to redo the table of contents. Bookmaking is a long and complicated process, as I learned when I worked as an assistant production editor before becoming a copyeditor (a much earlier stage in the process when you have more freedom to make corrections).

http://books.google.com/books?id=RQP8y7yR778C&pg=PA138&dq=page+proofs+author+publisher&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Brg8UdTxBMuZqQG4zIGICA&sqi=2&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=page%20proofs%20author%20publisher&f=false

I wonder if the rush to get Baldwin's book into print resulted in a substantial number of uncorrected errors. I wouldn't be surprised.

Carol

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Maire, lol!
> But on the other hand I love him more for dealing with what must have been a painful " disability< ?>.....as someone mentioned he rode 20-30 miles a day!! What a man!

Carol responds:

Well, not every day. He sometimes stayed in one place for months at a time (for example, during the Protectorate and the first part of his reign before he went on progress.

Can someone who is familiar with horses (Hilary?) tell me whether an ambling horse is the same as a palfrey?

Carol

It's also been bothering me about who the recreated face looks like.  I think maybe a bit Orlando Bloom. I've also heard Robert Pattinson and even Morrisey (!) suggested online, what does everyone else think? 

My friend who is now with St Martins certainly used to get his proofs in paper form when I first knew him a decade ago. His publisher back then was Wiley, but his last book with them in 2010 was done electronically, as was my own book ( a work of fiction on the last Russian Empress) back in 2008 - which was with a small publisher. This is why St Martins surprised me - I thought the process had changed generally and a huge house like that would have kept up. Even when paper proofs were sent out months in advance the author often had so little time with them that errors got through, whereas the newer process allowed changes to be made right up to a couple of weeks before the book hit the shelves. I would guess this is reflected in electronic publishing.  
David Baldwin's book seems to be an updated version of the published last year, with a new chapter added at the end, so hopefully there won't be any particularly huge errors in it, or at least not errors that weren't in the first edition. I know that Philippa Gregory's endorsement annoys people here, but surely this too is standard practice - to have a "name" endorse the book, but not necessarily every word of its contents, to attract sales.  
Baldwin apparently thinks that Richard could be fairly ruthless but probably didn't kill the princes, and that is an interesting departure in this debate - at least to me! :-) 

--- On Sun, 10/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: re new book
To:
Date: Sunday, 10 March, 2013, 16:51
















 













--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

>

> The recreation of his face is on the back cover.

>

> This small publisher has done well to get Baldwin's book updated and out within a month of the results of the dig being formally announced, especially as a friend of mine who is being published by St Martins Press (one of the biggest publishers in the world) has just received proofs of his book (nothing to do to with Richard, though) to correct in PENCIL six long months before it's due out.



Carol responds:



That's standard procedure. Once the pages have been set in type, both the author and the publisher are sent a set of proofs to be corrected (proofread). Since neither has access to typesetting machinery, the corrections are usually made on the page proofs themselves and incorporated by the typesetter into the file. (It's possible to do it using a .pdf file sent by e-mail but that's rare--or at least it was when I worked as an assistant production editor around a dozen years ago.) The corrected pages are sent to the production editor to make sure that they have been done correctly and have not messed up the pagination, making it necessary to redo the table of contents. Bookmaking is a long and complicated process, as I learned when I worked as an assistant production editor before becoming a copyeditor (a much earlier stage in the process when you have more freedom to make corrections).



http://books.google.com/books?id=RQP8y7yR778C&pg=PA138&dq=page+proofs+author+publisher&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Brg8UdTxBMuZqQG4zIGICA&sqi=2&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=page%20proofs%20author%20publisher&f=false



I wonder if the rush to get Baldwin's book into print resulted in a substantial number of uncorrected errors. I wouldn't be surprised.



Carol

The group is using that expression because Simon Farnaby described the facial reconstruction that way in "The King in the Car Park". If all you've ever seen is a putty-nosed Olivier limping around sneering into the camera, a bonny lad is a nice change.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> Why must a section of the 'Tender Gender' insist that a man must be a 'Bonny Lad'.
>
> In our own age it is readily apparent  that some Ladies seem to 'Insist' on us 'Studs' being 'Pretty Bonny' many ladies however find 'Power' a 'Turn On'.
>
>  Whilst others might find, [Especially in Richard's Day?] a Tendency to Wash, Be Considerate, 
> Well Mannered, Complimentary Etc.,Etc.,
>
>   A number of politicians, including at the modern 'Top Table,' Lloyd George, John Major, Paddy Ashdown, [?Chris Huhne, Geoffrey Archer] have all had their 'day' in our modern worldly moment in the sonne.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2013, 22:43
> >Subject: Re: re new book
> >
> >
> > 
> >Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
> >Maire.
> >
> >--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Re: cover illustration on new book: The David Baldwin new book on Richard has a nauseating cover illustration! Just when we all were enjoying the looks of our Bonney Lad, and figuring we deserve some reward for our decades of research and support, we are subjected to this! I guess Im just a shallow Lady of a Certain Age, but there ought to be a law! Carol D.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> The group is using that expression because Simon Farnaby described the facial reconstruction that way in "The King in the Car Park". If all you've ever seen is a putty-nosed Olivier limping around sneering into the camera, a bonny lad is a nice change.
>


Dunno. Putty nose or no, I thought Olivier was mighty sexay in that wooing scene...



> --- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@> wrote:
> >
> > Why must a section of the 'Tender Gender' insist that a man must be a 'Bonny Lad'.
> >
> > In our own age it is readily apparent  that some Ladies seem to 'Insist' on us 'Studs' being 'Pretty Bonny' many ladies however
> >
> >  Whilst others might find, [Especially in Richard's Day?] a Tendency to Wash, Be Considerate, 
> > Well Mannered, Complimentary Etc.,Etc.,
> >
> >   A number of politicians, including at the modern 'Top Table,' Lloyd George, John Major, Paddy Ashdown, [?Chris Huhne, Geoffrey Archer] have all had their 'day' in our modern worldly moment in the sonne.
> >  
> > Kind Regards,
> >  
> > Arthur.
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@>
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2013, 22:43
> > >Subject: Re: re new book
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
> > >Maire.
> > >
> > >--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Re: cover illustration on new book: The David Baldwin new book on Richard has a nauseating cover illustration! Just when we all were enjoying the looks of our Bonney Lad, and figuring we deserve some reward for our decades of research and support, we are subjected to this! I guess Im just a shallow Lady of a Certain Age, but there ought to be a law! Carol D.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

McJohn you always crack me up:)


Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 10, 2013, at 8:38 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> The group is using that expression because Simon Farnaby described the facial reconstruction that way in "The King in the Car Park". If all you've ever seen is a putty-nosed Olivier limping around sneering into the camera, a bonny lad is a nice change.
>
> --- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
> >
> > Why must a section of the 'Tender Gender' insist that a man must be a 'Bonny Lad'.
> >
> > In our own age it is readily apparent that some Ladies seem to 'Insist' on us 'Studs' being 'Pretty Bonny' many ladies however find 'Power' a 'Turn On'.
> >
> > Whilst others might find, [Especially in Richard's Day?] a Tendency to Wash, Be Considerate,
> > Well Mannered, Complimentary Etc.,Etc.,
> >
> > A number of politicians, including at the modern 'Top Table,' Lloyd George, John Major, Paddy Ashdown, [?Chris Huhne, Geoffrey Archer] have all had their 'day' in our modern worldly moment in the sonne.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Arthur.
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2013, 22:43
> > >Subject: Re: re new book
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Can you tell me where that awful portrait came from? I've seen it many times but it looks nothing like Richard. But the antis, I guess, will continue to push forth the idea that Richard was far from a bonny lad.
> > >Maire.
> > >
> > >--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Re: cover illustration on new book: The David Baldwin new book on Richard has a nauseating cover illustration! Just when we all were enjoying the looks of our Bonney Lad, and figuring we deserve some reward for our decades of research and support, we are subjected to this! I guess Im just a shallow Lady of a Certain Age, but there ought to be a law! Carol D.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>