The Colchester connection
The Colchester connection
2013-04-23 16:40:40
I've tried to search the Yahoogroup forums, but (a) there are 150+ "hits'
on Colchester, & (b) my ISP has just refused to keep going "there." That
said, can anyone provide some background on Colchester Abbey & why it might
have been regarded as a "safe haven" for Yorkists after the Battle of
Bosworth? Was that perception the reason why Henry VII seems to have paid
unusual attention to it during the first part of his reign? (This
information comes from Baldwin's *The Lost Prince*, which I admit to having
only skimmed, so I'm relying on Dorothea Preis's review of the book from
the NSW R3 site for what I've just written). And does this in any way
provide some explanation for J A-H's discovery of evidence suggesting that
Edward V might have been dead by Dec 1483? (or at least the writer
*thought*so) John found an entry in the Oath Book --
In Benham's edition of the Oath Book there appears the following entry for
1482-83: Bailiffs: John Bisshop. Thos. Cristemesse. Bailiffs from
Michaelmas in the 22nd year of Edward IV, now defunct, until the 8th April
next following, and then in the first year of Edward V, late son of Edward
IV, until the 20th June next following; and in the first year of Richard
III, until the following Michaelmas.
John then gives the original Latin text & (presumably) his translation
Tempore Iohannis Bisshop & Thome Cristemesse, Ballivorum ville Colcestrie
a festo Sancti Michelis Archangeli Anno domini Edwardi quarti nuper Regis
anglie, iam defuncti, vicesimo secundo, usque octavum diem Aprilis nine
primo sequentem, Anno regni Regis Edwardi R ý p [Regis spurii?] "quinti
nuper filii domini Edwardi quarti post conquestum primo, usque vicesimum
diem Iunij tunc primo sequentem, Anno Regni Regis Ricardi tercij post
conquestum primo incipiente, et abinde usque ad festum Sancti Micheli
Archangeli extunc primo futuro quasi per u n um Annum integrum.
Translation:
In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
A link to the publication quoted above
cat.essex.ac.uk/reports/EAS-report-0002.pdf
A J
on Colchester, & (b) my ISP has just refused to keep going "there." That
said, can anyone provide some background on Colchester Abbey & why it might
have been regarded as a "safe haven" for Yorkists after the Battle of
Bosworth? Was that perception the reason why Henry VII seems to have paid
unusual attention to it during the first part of his reign? (This
information comes from Baldwin's *The Lost Prince*, which I admit to having
only skimmed, so I'm relying on Dorothea Preis's review of the book from
the NSW R3 site for what I've just written). And does this in any way
provide some explanation for J A-H's discovery of evidence suggesting that
Edward V might have been dead by Dec 1483? (or at least the writer
*thought*so) John found an entry in the Oath Book --
In Benham's edition of the Oath Book there appears the following entry for
1482-83: Bailiffs: John Bisshop. Thos. Cristemesse. Bailiffs from
Michaelmas in the 22nd year of Edward IV, now defunct, until the 8th April
next following, and then in the first year of Edward V, late son of Edward
IV, until the 20th June next following; and in the first year of Richard
III, until the following Michaelmas.
John then gives the original Latin text & (presumably) his translation
Tempore Iohannis Bisshop & Thome Cristemesse, Ballivorum ville Colcestrie
a festo Sancti Michelis Archangeli Anno domini Edwardi quarti nuper Regis
anglie, iam defuncti, vicesimo secundo, usque octavum diem Aprilis nine
primo sequentem, Anno regni Regis Edwardi R ý p [Regis spurii?] "quinti
nuper filii domini Edwardi quarti post conquestum primo, usque vicesimum
diem Iunij tunc primo sequentem, Anno Regni Regis Ricardi tercij post
conquestum primo incipiente, et abinde usque ad festum Sancti Micheli
Archangeli extunc primo futuro quasi per u n um Annum integrum.
Translation:
In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
A link to the publication quoted above
cat.essex.ac.uk/reports/EAS-report-0002.pdf
A J
Re: The Colchester connection
2013-04-23 18:59:48
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: The Colchester connection
> In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
If it says, w. re. Edward IV, "late king of England, now deceased" it's
presumably using "late" there to mean "no longer king" rather than "dead" -
otherwise it would mean "dead king of England, now dead". So perhaps
"Edward [] V, late" means "Edward V, former king".
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: The Colchester connection
> In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
If it says, w. re. Edward IV, "late king of England, now deceased" it's
presumably using "late" there to mean "no longer king" rather than "dead" -
otherwise it would mean "dead king of England, now dead". So perhaps
"Edward [] V, late" means "Edward V, former king".
Re: The Colchester connection
2013-04-23 19:15:57
The "late" here sounds like shorthand for "of late," meaning something like "in recent past."
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: The Colchester connection
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: The Colchester connection
> In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
If it says, w. re. Edward IV, "late king of England, now deceased" it's
presumably using "late" there to mean "no longer king" rather than "dead" -
otherwise it would mean "dead king of England, now dead". So perhaps
"Edward [] V, late" means "Edward V, former king".
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: The Colchester connection
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: The Colchester connection
> In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
If it says, w. re. Edward IV, "late king of England, now deceased" it's
presumably using "late" there to mean "no longer king" rather than "dead" -
otherwise it would mean "dead king of England, now dead". So perhaps
"Edward [] V, late" means "Edward V, former king".
Re: The Colchester connection
2013-04-23 20:12:52
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: The Colchester connection
> The "late" here sounds like shorthand for "of late," meaning something
> like "in recent past."
Exactly - it's "Edward IV, *lately* king of England, now deceased". So
"Edward V, late son of the lord Edward IV" could mean "lately king" or
"lately the legitimate heir" rather than "dead".
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: The Colchester connection
> The "late" here sounds like shorthand for "of late," meaning something
> like "in recent past."
Exactly - it's "Edward IV, *lately* king of England, now deceased". So
"Edward V, late son of the lord Edward IV" could mean "lately king" or
"lately the legitimate heir" rather than "dead".
Re: The Colchester connection
2013-04-23 20:48:00
Shamefully (since I have lived in Colchester for five and a half years, I know nothing about the history of the Abbey and I only learned recently through this forum that Colch was a Yorkist hotbed (am "so" glad now that I live here.)
However if you do a search on Google Earth for "St John's Green Colchester" and then go into Street View, you can see the Abbey gate which is all that remains.
This link tells you a bit about the Abbey from an archaeological aspect. I can't find anything on the internet about Colchester as pro Yorkish (if you google Colchester Wars of the Roses you get lots of hits about a local rose growing company!)
http://www.thecolchesterarchaeologist.co.uk/?p=1126
JAH would probably know because he lives (or lived) in Lawford which is near here. Stephen also probably knowsas he lives not too far away I think.
Liz
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 16:40
Subject: The Colchester connection
I've tried to search the Yahoogroup forums, but (a) there are 150+ "hits'
on Colchester, & (b) my ISP has just refused to keep going "there." That
said, can anyone provide some background on Colchester Abbey & why it might
have been regarded as a "safe haven" for Yorkists after the Battle of
Bosworth? Was that perception the reason why Henry VII seems to have paid
unusual attention to it during the first part of his reign? (This
information comes from Baldwin's *The Lost Prince*, which I admit to having
only skimmed, so I'm relying on Dorothea Preis's review of the book from
the NSW R3 site for what I've just written). And does this in any way
provide some explanation for J A-H's discovery of evidence suggesting that
Edward V might have been dead by Dec 1483? (or at least the writer
*thought*so) John found an entry in the Oath Book --
In Benham's edition of the Oath Book there appears the following entry for
1482-83: Bailiffs: John Bisshop. Thos. Cristemesse. Bailiffs from
Michaelmas in the 22nd year of Edward IV, now defunct, until the 8th April
next following, and then in the first year of Edward V, late son of Edward
IV, until the 20th June next following; and in the first year of Richard
III, until the following Michaelmas.
John then gives the original Latin text & (presumably) his translation
Tempore Iohannis Bisshop & Thome Cristemesse, Ballivorum ville Colcestrie
a festo Sancti Michelis Archangeli Anno domini Edwardi quarti nuper Regis
anglie, iam defuncti, vicesimo secundo, usque octavum diem Aprilis nine
primo sequentem, Anno regni Regis Edwardi R p [Regis spurii?] "quinti
nuper filii domini Edwardi quarti post conquestum primo, usque vicesimum
diem Iunij tunc primo sequentem, Anno Regni Regis Ricardi tercij post
conquestum primo incipiente, et abinde usque ad festum Sancti Micheli
Archangeli extunc primo futuro quasi per u n um Annum integrum.
Translation:
In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
A link to the publication quoted above
cat.essex.ac.uk/reports/EAS-report-0002.pdf
A J
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
However if you do a search on Google Earth for "St John's Green Colchester" and then go into Street View, you can see the Abbey gate which is all that remains.
This link tells you a bit about the Abbey from an archaeological aspect. I can't find anything on the internet about Colchester as pro Yorkish (if you google Colchester Wars of the Roses you get lots of hits about a local rose growing company!)
http://www.thecolchesterarchaeologist.co.uk/?p=1126
JAH would probably know because he lives (or lived) in Lawford which is near here. Stephen also probably knowsas he lives not too far away I think.
Liz
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 16:40
Subject: The Colchester connection
I've tried to search the Yahoogroup forums, but (a) there are 150+ "hits'
on Colchester, & (b) my ISP has just refused to keep going "there." That
said, can anyone provide some background on Colchester Abbey & why it might
have been regarded as a "safe haven" for Yorkists after the Battle of
Bosworth? Was that perception the reason why Henry VII seems to have paid
unusual attention to it during the first part of his reign? (This
information comes from Baldwin's *The Lost Prince*, which I admit to having
only skimmed, so I'm relying on Dorothea Preis's review of the book from
the NSW R3 site for what I've just written). And does this in any way
provide some explanation for J A-H's discovery of evidence suggesting that
Edward V might have been dead by Dec 1483? (or at least the writer
*thought*so) John found an entry in the Oath Book --
In Benham's edition of the Oath Book there appears the following entry for
1482-83: Bailiffs: John Bisshop. Thos. Cristemesse. Bailiffs from
Michaelmas in the 22nd year of Edward IV, now defunct, until the 8th April
next following, and then in the first year of Edward V, late son of Edward
IV, until the 20th June next following; and in the first year of Richard
III, until the following Michaelmas.
John then gives the original Latin text & (presumably) his translation
Tempore Iohannis Bisshop & Thome Cristemesse, Ballivorum ville Colcestrie
a festo Sancti Michelis Archangeli Anno domini Edwardi quarti nuper Regis
anglie, iam defuncti, vicesimo secundo, usque octavum diem Aprilis nine
primo sequentem, Anno regni Regis Edwardi R p [Regis spurii?] "quinti
nuper filii domini Edwardi quarti post conquestum primo, usque vicesimum
diem Iunij tunc primo sequentem, Anno Regni Regis Ricardi tercij post
conquestum primo incipiente, et abinde usque ad festum Sancti Micheli
Archangeli extunc primo futuro quasi per u n um Annum integrum.
Translation:
In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
A link to the publication quoted above
cat.essex.ac.uk/reports/EAS-report-0002.pdf
A J
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: The Colchester connection
2013-04-23 21:14:27
Yes, I agree. In ten years of studying Latin I have only ever translated "nuper" as "lately" or "recently" or "formerly" - but never with a connotation of death or someone deceased.
Col
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: The Colchester connection
>
>
> > The "late" here sounds like shorthand for "of late," meaning something
> > like "in recent past."
>
> Exactly - it's "Edward IV, *lately* king of England, now deceased". So
> "Edward V, late son of the lord Edward IV" could mean "lately king" or
> "lately the legitimate heir" rather than "dead".
>
Col
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: The Colchester connection
>
>
> > The "late" here sounds like shorthand for "of late," meaning something
> > like "in recent past."
>
> Exactly - it's "Edward IV, *lately* king of England, now deceased". So
> "Edward V, late son of the lord Edward IV" could mean "lately king" or
> "lately the legitimate heir" rather than "dead".
>
Re: The Colchester connection
2013-04-23 21:15:36
Oh yes - we visited St. John's Abbey Gatehouse twice and I met Marie there.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: The Colchester connection
Shamefully (since I have lived in Colchester for five and a half years, I know nothing about the history of the Abbey and I only learned recently through this forum that Colch was a Yorkist hotbed (am "so" glad now that I live here.)
However if you do a search on Google Earth for "St John's Green Colchester" and then go into Street View, you can see the Abbey gate which is all that remains.
This link tells you a bit about the Abbey from an archaeological aspect. I can't find anything on the internet about Colchester as pro Yorkish (if you google Colchester Wars of the Roses you get lots of hits about a local rose growing company!)
http://www.thecolchesterarchaeologist.co.uk/?p=1126
JAH would probably know because he lives (or lived) in Lawford which is near here. Stephen also probably knowsas he lives not too far away I think.
Liz
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 16:40
Subject: The Colchester connection
I've tried to search the Yahoogroup forums, but (a) there are 150+ "hits'
on Colchester, & (b) my ISP has just refused to keep going "there." That
said, can anyone provide some background on Colchester Abbey & why it might
have been regarded as a "safe haven" for Yorkists after the Battle of
Bosworth? Was that perception the reason why Henry VII seems to have paid
unusual attention to it during the first part of his reign? (This
information comes from Baldwin's *The Lost Prince*, which I admit to having
only skimmed, so I'm relying on Dorothea Preis's review of the book from
the NSW R3 site for what I've just written). And does this in any way
provide some explanation for J A-H's discovery of evidence suggesting that
Edward V might have been dead by Dec 1483? (or at least the writer
*thought*so) John found an entry in the Oath Book --
In Benham's edition of the Oath Book there appears the following entry for
1482-83: Bailiffs: John Bisshop. Thos. Cristemesse. Bailiffs from
Michaelmas in the 22nd year of Edward IV, now defunct, until the 8th April
next following, and then in the first year of Edward V, late son of Edward
IV, until the 20th June next following; and in the first year of Richard
III, until the following Michaelmas.
John then gives the original Latin text & (presumably) his translation
Tempore Iohannis Bisshop & Thome Cristemesse, Ballivorum ville Colcestrie
a festo Sancti Michelis Archangeli Anno domini Edwardi quarti nuper Regis
anglie, iam defuncti, vicesimo secundo, usque octavum diem Aprilis nine
primo sequentem, Anno regni Regis Edwardi R p [Regis spurii?] "quinti
nuper filii domini Edwardi quarti post conquestum primo, usque vicesimum
diem Iunij tunc primo sequentem, Anno Regni Regis Ricardi tercij post
conquestum primo incipiente, et abinde usque ad festum Sancti Micheli
Archangeli extunc primo futuro quasi per u n um Annum integrum.
Translation:
In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
A link to the publication quoted above
cat.essex.ac.uk/reports/EAS-report-0002.pdf
A J
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: The Colchester connection
Shamefully (since I have lived in Colchester for five and a half years, I know nothing about the history of the Abbey and I only learned recently through this forum that Colch was a Yorkist hotbed (am "so" glad now that I live here.)
However if you do a search on Google Earth for "St John's Green Colchester" and then go into Street View, you can see the Abbey gate which is all that remains.
This link tells you a bit about the Abbey from an archaeological aspect. I can't find anything on the internet about Colchester as pro Yorkish (if you google Colchester Wars of the Roses you get lots of hits about a local rose growing company!)
http://www.thecolchesterarchaeologist.co.uk/?p=1126
JAH would probably know because he lives (or lived) in Lawford which is near here. Stephen also probably knowsas he lives not too far away I think.
Liz
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 16:40
Subject: The Colchester connection
I've tried to search the Yahoogroup forums, but (a) there are 150+ "hits'
on Colchester, & (b) my ISP has just refused to keep going "there." That
said, can anyone provide some background on Colchester Abbey & why it might
have been regarded as a "safe haven" for Yorkists after the Battle of
Bosworth? Was that perception the reason why Henry VII seems to have paid
unusual attention to it during the first part of his reign? (This
information comes from Baldwin's *The Lost Prince*, which I admit to having
only skimmed, so I'm relying on Dorothea Preis's review of the book from
the NSW R3 site for what I've just written). And does this in any way
provide some explanation for J A-H's discovery of evidence suggesting that
Edward V might have been dead by Dec 1483? (or at least the writer
*thought*so) John found an entry in the Oath Book --
In Benham's edition of the Oath Book there appears the following entry for
1482-83: Bailiffs: John Bisshop. Thos. Cristemesse. Bailiffs from
Michaelmas in the 22nd year of Edward IV, now defunct, until the 8th April
next following, and then in the first year of Edward V, late son of Edward
IV, until the 20th June next following; and in the first year of Richard
III, until the following Michaelmas.
John then gives the original Latin text & (presumably) his translation
Tempore Iohannis Bisshop & Thome Cristemesse, Ballivorum ville Colcestrie
a festo Sancti Michelis Archangeli Anno domini Edwardi quarti nuper Regis
anglie, iam defuncti, vicesimo secundo, usque octavum diem Aprilis nine
primo sequentem, Anno regni Regis Edwardi R p [Regis spurii?] "quinti
nuper filii domini Edwardi quarti post conquestum primo, usque vicesimum
diem Iunij tunc primo sequentem, Anno Regni Regis Ricardi tercij post
conquestum primo incipiente, et abinde usque ad festum Sancti Micheli
Archangeli extunc primo futuro quasi per u n um Annum integrum.
Translation:
In the time of John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse, Bailiffs of the town
of Colchester from the feast of St Michael the Archangel in the 22 year of
the reign of the Lord Edward IV, late king of England, now deceased, up
until the 8th day of April first following; [and] in the first year of the
reign of King Edward [erasure; see note 20] V, late ' son of the lord
Edward IV after the Conquest, up to the 20th day of June then first
following; [and] in the first year of the reign of Richard III after the
Conquest, from the beginning, and thence until the first feast of St
Michael the Archangel thereafter as for one complete year.
A link to the publication quoted above
cat.essex.ac.uk/reports/EAS-report-0002.pdf
A J
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.