King Richard III campaign email address

http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/

Hello All, don't know if you have all seen this site but its good and they are looking for donations to fight for Richard to be returned to York. They have started a company to do so.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

I think tomorrow they are publicly announcing their intention to challenge the validity of the licence - from their "donations page" - they are "dedicated to initiating the legal review and ultimate invalidation of the license granted to exhume the remains of King Richard III and to support his return to Yorkshire for full, ceremonial burial". It would be great to see some major movement on this front.

Col

--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/
>
> Hello All, don't know if you have all seen this site but its good and they are looking for donations to fight for Richard to be returned to York. They have started a company to do so.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>

Ys it's gone too quiet from Leicester - as though they hope it will just go away.



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: King Richard III campaign email address

 

I think tomorrow they are publicly announcing their intention to challenge the validity of the licence - from their "donations page" - they are "dedicated to initiating the legal review and ultimate invalidation of the license granted to exhume the remains of King Richard III and to support his return to Yorkshire for full, ceremonial burial". It would be great to see some major movement on this front.

Col

--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/
>
> Hello All, don't know if you have all seen this site but its good and they are looking for donations to fight for Richard to be returned to York. They have started a company to do so.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>

Thank you Christine. I took a brief look at the home page, and it looks very interesting.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 8:01 AM, "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>" <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>> wrote:



http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/

Hello All, don't know if you have all seen this site but its good and they are looking for donations to fight for Richard to be returned to York. They have started a company to do so.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

I note it refers to the  "Descendants" campaign.  I have to say that drives me nuts.  I don't refer to myself as my Great Aunt Cissie's "descendant" and she only died 50 years ago, not 500.



________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 13:01
Subject: King Richard III campaign email address

 
http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/

Hello All, don't know if you have all seen this site but its good and they are looking for donations to fight for Richard to be returned to York. They have started a company to do so.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

Plus references to Richard's expressed wishes (rather than just the appropriateness of the location), and solicitation for funding.  It's a nice looking site, but my reaction is to treat it with extreme caution.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 14:33
Subject: Re: King Richard III campaign email address


 
I note it refers to the  "Descendants" campaign.  I have to say that drives me nuts.  I don't refer to myself as my Great Aunt Cissie's "descendant" and she only died 50 years ago, not 500.

________________________________
From: "[email protected]@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 13:01
Subject: King Richard III campaign email address

 
http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/

Hello All, don't know if you have all seen this site but its good and they are looking for donations to fight for Richard to be returned to York. They have started a company to do so.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall
(and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's
face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than
Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the
Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power -
even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh
nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans...<clip>
>
>Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had
previously
>acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying
they
>were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their
legal
>monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

As an American who has studied the War of Independence quite
extensively, I feel the need to point out that it was not taxation
itself they were rebelling against. It was taxation without
representation. Although there were some British who advocated for
them, they had no voice of their own in Parliament. In addition, the
British were governing the American colonies in a way that was best
for the empire, but not the colonies. And, many colonists were
generations away from England, and did not see themselves as
Englishmen any longer, even if they were governed by the British. It
was largely a movement for the self-determination to govern themselves
to their own best advantage.

And I think they were extremely brave to take the decision for action that they ultimately did. These were honourable people not acting for their own ends, but for that of the country they had created.  They could have lost everything including their lives. Jefferson is one of my heroes, but not the only one. I would be speaking treason were George III still my head of state.



________________________________
From: Margaret Anderson <megander@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:01
Subject: Re: King Richard III campaign email address

 

To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall
(and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's
face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than
Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the
Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power -
even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh
nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans...<clip>
>
>Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had
previously
>acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying
they
>were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their
legal
>monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

As an American who has studied the War of Independence quite
extensively, I feel the need to point out that it was not taxation
itself they were rebelling against. It was taxation without
representation. Although there were some British who advocated for
them, they had no voice of their own in Parliament. In addition, the
British were governing the American colonies in a way that was best
for the empire, but not the colonies. And, many colonists were
generations away from England, and did not see themselves as
Englishmen any longer, even if they were governed by the British. It
was largely a movement for the self-determination to govern themselves
to their own best advantage.

It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to back quite a few generations. And, these folks get plenty hot and bothered if any entity encroaches on their "territory"! Going far afield, there is an old, but delightful movie called "Viva Max", with Peter Ustinov, trying to retake the Alamo, and clashing with the Daughters of the Republic. It hits VERY close to home!!!



On Mar 24, 2013, at 9:33 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



I note it refers to the "Descendants" campaign. I have to say that drives me nuts. I don't refer to myself as my Great Aunt Cissie's "descendant" and she only died 50 years ago, not 500.

________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com>christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 13:01
Subject: King Richard III campaign email address


http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/

Hello All, don't know if you have all seen this site but its good and they are looking for donations to fight for Richard to be returned to York. They have started a company to do so.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Re: King Richard III campaign email
address


> And I think they were extremely brave to take the decision for action that
> they ultimately did. These were honourable people not acting for their own
> ends, but for that of the country they had created.

I'd be happier about that if they hadn't created it by committing
large-scale robbery-with-violence against the native population, but I
suppose the worst excesses of the war against the Native Americans were
still in the future. All men created equal unless they're dark brown or a
funny kind of coppery colour....

Anyway, the reason I was arguing about it in the first place was that Carol
seemed to be presenting Henry's treason as a *moral* fault rather than a
legal one - apologies if I misunderstood that. I don't think Henry had any
moral obligation to owe allegiance to Richard, therefore his treason could
only be a moral fault if you regard breaking the laws against treason as
intrinsically illegal just because it's against the law, and if that's the
case then the American settlers were also morally wrong. If breaking the
laws against treason isn't a moral fault in cases where you have no
intrinsic reason to be loyal to the person you're committing treason
against, then it wasn't a moral fault in Henry either.

This is, of course, a separate issue from the morality of invading somebody
else's country just because the French government to which you are beholden
and which pays your bills wants you to. That's another case of large-scale
robbery-with-violence.

No kidding......but they were in active rebellion. I too am fond of Jefferson, as well as Franklin, Madison and Washington.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



And I think they were extremely brave to take the decision for action that they ultimately did. These were honourable people not acting for their own ends, but for that of the country they had created. They could have lost everything including their lives. Jefferson is one of my heroes, but not the only one. I would be speaking treason were George III still my head of state.

________________________________
From: Margaret Anderson <megander@...<mailto:megander%40earthlink.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:01
Subject: Re: King Richard III campaign email address



To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall
(and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's
face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than
Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the
Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power -
even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh
nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans...<clip>
>
>Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had
previously
>acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying
they
>were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their
legal
>monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

As an American who has studied the War of Independence quite
extensively, I feel the need to point out that it was not taxation
itself they were rebelling against. It was taxation without
representation. Although there were some British who advocated for
them, they had no voice of their own in Parliament. In addition, the
British were governing the American colonies in a way that was best
for the empire, but not the colonies. And, many colonists were
generations away from England, and did not see themselves as
Englishmen any longer, even if they were governed by the British. It
was largely a movement for the self-determination to govern themselves
to their own best advantage.

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign


> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

Yes, you are right, and I am hastily rethinking......although, in my citing of the U.S. groups, one can be a descendant from either male to female side. Yes, I know different rules apply for crowned heads of state, with some exceptions, all were male.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:33 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

Then we get onto the morality of justified rebellion. As we said when we began this, a univerity course on it would last a few years. Monticello is one of my favorite places (sorry OT!). And Ben Franklin, another hero of course. Back OT the difference between them and HT is that they were not seeking this for themselves, in fact more than one was a very reluctant President.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: Re: King Richard III campaign email address

No kidding......but they were in active rebellion. I too am fond of Jefferson, as well as Franklin, Madison and Washington.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



And I think they were extremely brave to take the decision for action that they ultimately did. These were honourable people not acting for their own ends, but for that of the country they had created.  They could have lost everything including their lives. Jefferson is one of my heroes, but not the only one. I would be speaking treason were George III still my head of state.

________________________________
From: Margaret Anderson <megander@...<mailto:megander%40earthlink.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:01
Subject: Re: King Richard III campaign email address



To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall
(and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's
face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than
Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the
Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power -
even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh
nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans...<clip>
>
>Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had
previously
>acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying
they
>were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their
legal
>monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

As an American who has studied the War of Independence quite
extensively, I feel the need to point out that it was not taxation
itself they were rebelling against. It was taxation without
representation. Although there were some British who advocated for
them, they had no voice of their own in Parliament. In addition, the
British were governing the American colonies in a way that was best
for the empire, but not the colonies. And, many colonists were
generations away from England, and did not see themselves as
Englishmen any longer, even if they were governed by the British. It
was largely a movement for the self-determination to govern themselves
to their own best advantage.













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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Ian Mortimer reckons over 80% of the British population are descended from Edward III - so we can all sign up. 



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

"collateral descendants" - Yes!
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign



From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

Absolutely agree Jonathon

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Plus references to Richard's expressed wishes (rather than just the appropriateness of the location), and solicitation for funding.  It's a nice looking site, but my reaction is to treat it with extreme caution.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 14:33
> Subject: Re: King Richard III campaign email address
>
>
>  
> I note it refers to the  "Descendants" campaign.  I have to say that drives me nuts.  I don't refer to myself as my Great Aunt Cissie's "descendant" and she only died 50 years ago, not 500.
>
> ________________________________
> From: "christineholmes651@...@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 13:01
> Subject: King Richard III campaign email address
>
>  
> http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/
>
> Hello All, don't know if you have all seen this site but its good and they are looking for donations to fight for Richard to be returned to York. They have started a company to do so.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: King Richard III campaign email
address


> Back OT the difference between them and HT is that they were not seeking
> this for themselves, in fact more than one was a very reluctant President.

True. Even if Henry believed Richard to be a usurper - and he may well have
done, since his news-feed came via Morton - his subsequent lack of interest
in his subjects' welfare makes it unlikely that he was strongly motivated by
any concern for the people. At best, it would give him the partial excuse
of thinking "He took the throne, so why shouldn't I?"

Collateral descendants are surely those of Richard's siblings - not that far back.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign



Ian Mortimer reckons over 80% of the British population are descended from Edward III - so we can all sign up.

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign



From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

 I was being ironic! 



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 16:35
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 

Collateral descendants are surely those of Richard's siblings - not that far back.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

Ian Mortimer reckons over 80% of the British population are descended from Edward III - so we can all sign up.

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

EXACTLY........ And one more thing on the descendants. Another "DUH" for me, you have to be a direct descendant in the U. S. to qualify for all the groups I cited.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: King Richard III campaign email address



Then we get onto the morality of justified rebellion. As we said when we began this, a univerity course on it would last a few years. Monticello is one of my favorite places (sorry OT!). And Ben Franklin, another hero of course. Back OT the difference between them and HT is that they were not seeking this for themselves, in fact more than one was a very reluctant President.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: Re: King Richard III campaign email address

No kidding......but they were in active rebellion. I too am fond of Jefferson, as well as Franklin, Madison and Washington.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com><mailto:hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:

And I think they were extremely brave to take the decision for action that they ultimately did. These were honourable people not acting for their own ends, but for that of the country they had created. They could have lost everything including their lives. Jefferson is one of my heroes, but not the only one. I would be speaking treason were George III still my head of state.

________________________________
From: Margaret Anderson <megander@...<mailto:megander%40earthlink.net><mailto:megander%40earthlink.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:01
Subject: Re: King Richard III campaign email address

To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall
(and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's
face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than
Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the
Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power -
even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh
nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans...<clip>
>
>Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had
previously
>acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying
they
>were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their
legal
>monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

As an American who has studied the War of Independence quite
extensively, I feel the need to point out that it was not taxation
itself they were rebelling against. It was taxation without
representation. Although there were some British who advocated for
them, they had no voice of their own in Parliament. In addition, the
British were governing the American colonies in a way that was best
for the empire, but not the colonies. And, many colonists were
generations away from England, and did not see themselves as
Englishmen any longer, even if they were governed by the British. It
was largely a movement for the self-determination to govern themselves
to their own best advantage.







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I often think I am one of the few people who isn't (not that I know of).
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:39
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 
Ian Mortimer reckons over 80% of the British population are descended from Edward III - so we can all sign up. 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 

From: "Pamela Bain" <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
..
>
> [snip] Anyway, the reason I was arguing about it in the first place was that Carol seemed to be presenting Henry's treason as a *moral* fault rather than a legal one - apologies if I misunderstood that. [snip]

Carol responds:

Sometimes I wonder if you read my posts carefully without preconceptions. I was talking throughout about treason as a legal concept and/or the way that Richard and his contemporaries understood the concept. I was also trying to distinguish, perhaps not clearly, between the legal concept of treason and the personal concept of treachery.

Morality only comes into it when Henry backdates his reign to attaint men and in come cases execute or imprison men who had fought for their anointed king. You call that a dark joke. I call it tyranny and judicial murder. Parliament did not approve but passed it anyway because "yt was the Kings pleasure."

In a way, Henry was following the precedent of Warwick acting for Henry VI and of the reinstated Edward in calling the followers of the rival king traitors. The difference is that, unlike Henry VI and Edward IV, Henry Tudor had never been a king, and backdating his reign to make "the Duke of Gloucester" a rebel against him was nothing more than a lie to serve his own ends. If it's any comfort, I suspect that Morton engineered this ingenious manipulation of the truth for political ends. We should hardly be surprised when the next move is the burning of Titulus Regius. If the truth is inconvenient, destroy it and invent your own, blackening the name of your predecessor and throwing in a little propaganda emphasizing your "Welshness" while you're at it.

It would be supremely ironic if Edmund Tudor were really Edmund Beaufort's son and Henry wasn't Welsh at all!

Carol

Carol


Carol

- Snip- It would be supremely ironic if Edmund Tudor were really Edmund Beaufort's son and Henry wasn't Welsh at all!
Wouldn't it be????? I had never thought that through.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 1:43 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:

It would be supremely ironic if Edmund Tudor were really Edmund Beaufort's son and Henry wasn't Welsh at all!

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> True. Even if Henry believed Richard to be a usurper - and he may well have done, since his news-feed came via Morton - his subsequent lack of interest in his subjects' welfare makes it unlikely that he was strongly motivated by any concern for the people. At best, it would give him the partial excuse of thinking "He took the throne, so why shouldn't I?"

Carol responds:

With the difference that Richard must be *labeled* a usurper and tyrant while Henry is labeled a conqueror (with a bit of "savior of England" thrown in for good measure--see the Croyland Chronicle and the Welsh ballads celebrating the outcome of Bosworth).

But since Henry ordered all copies of Titulus Regius burned unread, he had to have known that Richard's claim depended primarily on the illegitimacy of his nephews--and that, if they really were legitimate, Richard was no usurper but the rightful king elected by the Three Estates). The question is when he learned about that claim. I think he knew about it quite soon, possibly even before Bosworth, which would explain his reluctance to marry Elizabeth of York and his insistence on claiming the throne by right of conquest rather than through her.

Carol

Carol earlier:

> [snip] But since Henry ordered all copies of Titulus Regius burned unread, he had to have known that Richard's claim depended primarily on the illegitimacy of his nephews--and that, if they really were legitimate, Richard was no usurper but the rightful king elected by the Three Estates). The question is when he learned about that claim. I think he knew about it quite soon, possibly even before Bosworth, which would explain his reluctance to marry Elizabeth of York and his insistence on claiming the throne by right of conquest rather than through her.

Carol again:

I forgot to add that his immediately arresting Bishop Stillington indicates that he was already quite aware of Titulus Regius--and would IMO have been eager to destroy it whether or not he married EoY because it stated the validity of Richard's claim, making Henry, not Richard, the usurper.

Sorry I forgot to change the subject line of my previous post. I'm not changing it on this one either in hopes that it will thread.

Carol

Ah, but most were from the other side of the blanket, so you'll never know.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign


 

I often think I am one of the few people who isn't (not that I know of).
 
Liz

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:39
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 
Ian Mortimer reckons over 80% of the British population are descended from Edward III - so we can all sign up. 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 

From: "Pamela Bain" <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

Oh there's a few of "those" in my family. According to my cousin (Richard Whittington would you believe?) I am one of the few respectable ones on the Welsh side of the family.



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 
Ah, but most were from the other side of the blanket, so you'll never know.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign


 

I often think I am one of the few people who isn't (not that I know of).
 
Liz

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:39
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 
Ian Mortimer reckons over 80% of the British population are descended from Edward III - so we can all sign up. 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 

From: "Pamela Bain" <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign


> Oh there's a few of "those" in my family. According to my cousin (Richard
> Whittington would you believe?)

That's nothing - I have a cousin called Htoo Lu (Cthulhu). Nearly every
first born child in my family was born just after or just *before* their
parents' marriage, except me - my parents didn't marry at all.

Totally off topic - I still can't pronounce it whether it's in brackets or not!  And is that a male or female?



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 21:08
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

> Oh there's a few of "those" in my family. According to my cousin (Richard
> Whittington would you believe?)

That's nothing - I have a cousin called Htoo Lu (Cthulhu). Nearly every
first born child in my family was born just after or just *before* their
parents' marriage, except me - my parents didn't marry at all.

H.P. Lovecraft fans? 

--- On Sun, 24/3/13, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign
To: "" <>
Date: Sunday, 24 March, 2013, 20:58
















 









Totally off topic - I still can't pronounce it whether it's in brackets or not!  And is that a male or female?



________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>

To:

Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 21:08

Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign



 

From: liz williams

To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:37 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign



> Oh there's a few of "those" in my family. According to my cousin (Richard

> Whittington would you believe?)



That's nothing - I have a cousin called Htoo Lu (Cthulhu). Nearly every

first born child in my family was born just after or just *before* their

parents' marriage, except me - my parents didn't marry at all.

But you don't have to live with a mother who had Henry VII's brithday (and Tudor gold hair at 92) and a daughter who has MB's. How could/can I live with such celebrations? What else will I discover, am I here for atonement?:) All that and being descended from a bigamist!!



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 19:37
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign


 

Oh there's a few of "those" in my family. According to my cousin (Richard Whittington would you believe?) I am one of the few respectable ones on the Welsh side of the family.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 
Ah, but most were from the other side of the blanket, so you'll never know.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 

I often think I am one of the few people who isn't (not that I know of).
 
Liz

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:39
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 
Ian Mortimer reckons over 80% of the British population are descended from Edward III - so we can all sign up. 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 

From: "Pamela Bain" <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

OK Liz, somehow we are related. My mother is a Whittington, and the entire family has at least one Richard in every generation that we have traced.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 3:46 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Oh there's a few of "those" in my family. According to my cousin (Richard Whittington would you believe?) I am one of the few respectable ones on the Welsh side of the family.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign


Ah, but most were from the other side of the blanket, so you'll never know.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign



I often think I am one of the few people who isn't (not that I know of).

Liz

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:39
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign


Ian Mortimer reckons over 80% of the British population are descended from Edward III - so we can all sign up.

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com<http://40madasafish.com>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign



From: "Pamela Bain" <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<http://40bmbi.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?

Were they English or Welsh?  Because if they were Welsh Whittingtons we are "definitely" related and probably only a couple of hundred years ago.  The English ones we'd probably never find the connection (my lot moved from Gloucestershire to Wales some time before 1600)


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 21:41
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

 
OK Liz, somehow we are related. My mother is a Whittington, and the entire family has at least one Richard in every generation that we have traced.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 3:46 PM, "liz williams" <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<mailto:mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

Oh there's a few of "those" in my family. According to my cousin (Richard Whittington would you believe?) I am one of the few respectable ones on the Welsh side of the family.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

Ah, but most were from the other side of the blanket, so you'll never know.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com/>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

I often think I am one of the few people who isn't (not that I know of).

Liz

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com/>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:39
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

Ian Mortimer reckons over 80% of the British population are descended from Edward III - so we can all sign up.

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com<http://40madasafish.com/>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Descendants Campaign

From: "Pamela Bain" <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<http://40bmbi.com/>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Campaign

> It is a little disconcerting, especially when some of the descendants did
> not want to be named. However, in the U.S. if one wants to be a
> son/daughter of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or be a
> descendant of someone born in Texas when it was a Republic, you have to
> back quite a few generations.

Mm, but the point is that Richard doesn't actually have any descendants, as
such - not that we *know* about, anyway, although it's quite possible young
John fathered bastards of his own. What he has that we know about are
great-to-the-nth nephews, nieces and cousins - although aren't the nephews
and nieces called "collateral descendants"?